There are times when the stupidity of an elected official is so excessive that it leads me to question how in the hell such people actually get elected. Is it that they just look like a leader, spend more money campaigning, or have a knack for talking without offending anyone? With Louis Manzo, member of the New Jersey legislature, I can't even guess. He was just elected in 2004, so maybe he's just trying to push some legislation to look active.

What Manzo's bill proposes is that the state have the right to simply TAKE a "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"

Specifically, this is the statement describing the change the bill would cause:

This bill would authorized [sic] the forfeiture of any motor vehicle, building or premise in which a firearm was unlawfully possessed. Under current law, forfeiture actions are limited to contraband and property used to further unlawful activity or illegal acts. Under this bill, the motor vehicle, building or premise could be seized if an unlawfully possessed firearm was found within it, even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise.

If someone's... anyone's... unlicensed gun is found in your car, house, or business, you've just lost your property. No crime need be committed with the gun, it's enough that it be unlicensed. The property owner doesn't even have to KNOW that the gun is present. A completely innocent person could lose their car, house, or business property, a penalty that could be far worse than the penalty for the person having the unlicensed firearm.

The concept is that you're legally responsible for what is on your property. Just what is the response that Manzo's nutty idea would expect from law-abiding citizens trying to avoid property loss? Does he expect that one should do a complete search of everyone you allow into your house or business? Should one inspect the gun permit to be sure that they are legal and current? For individual homeowners, that would include repairmen, meter-readers, housing inspectors, friends, friends of your kids, neighbors, etc. For businesses, it's impossible to even consider what would be needed to protect yourself. Even for your car, you would have to check mechanics and parking attendants.

To be sure, New Jersey citizens, if this bill is passed, should certainly do a complete frisk and license check before allowing any law enforcement officer on their premises, looking particularly for a second or third gun hidden, perhaps, in a ankle holster like we so often see on television shows.

Where did Manzo get such a crazy idea?  Well... there is PRECEDENT, and it comes from the distortion and excesses of our drug laws. Here is Manzo's "logic":

"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."

Using the same convoluted thinking, there would be no reason for Manzo not to extend the same penalty to cases where unlicensed cars, bicycles, cats, or dogs are found on your property. Just take the property on which they were discovered.

Of course, the precedent set by drug laws was outrageous to begin with. Supporters would claim that the forfeiture provisions were put in to take resources away from drug "kingpins", and would never be used against innocent citizens who are technically liable. I hope we all realize that's bullshit. The forfeiture provisions of our drug laws have been a financial boon to police departments... a major source of income in some cases. Last September, I wrote Dividing the spoils of confiscation about police departments fighting over property taken for lack of a driver's license.

As I wrote in Another knock on your door:

Every week over 5,000 innocent Americans like you lose their cars, bank accounts, homes, or businesses, without ever being charged with a crime.

It IS about money... simply about being able to take property from innocent people under completely phony circumstances. It's like trying to get the bad guys with a giant net, pulling in lots of innocent people, and then claiming that some truly bad guys were nabbed, and a few eggs have to be broken to make an omelet.

Asset forfeiture is the tool of greedy government at all levels, and it is being used to finance more government growth without needing to increase taxes. It happens to one person at a time, who faces an almost insurmountable hurdle in trying to get the property back, while their neighbors all assume that they must have done SOMETHING wrong.

Around the world, there are dictators who have no hesitation in taking personal property, but at least they're honest about it... they just want it and they take it... no pretense at "rule of law", no pretense of "doing good" as with someone like Manzo, who also used this more blatant justification:

"Unlike the buyback program, this doesn't cost
the taxpayers money to get rid of illegal guns."

Is he so dense that he doesn't see the danger of harm to innocents and the incentive to corruption... or does he just not care who gets hurt as long as he can claim that he got rid of some illegal guns? I have no way of knowing, but it's absolutely clear that there is something very wrong with that man's thought process.