WTF: Plaintiff USA, Defendant 1 Smith & Wesson, Model 916A 12 guage shotgun

Hey ATS, I wonder if someone can answer this. How is it that a bunch of guns end up as defendants in a federal case?

United States of America v. One Smith & Wesson, Model 916A, 12 gauge shotgun, et al

I am assuming that since these defendants can not speak on their behalf the government was successful in their confiscation and liquidation.

Anyone know by what president that a firearm can become a defendant in a federal case? I am just curious. I was searching for information for a 916a I got in an estate sale. That is when I found this link above and it got me going. What is this? inanimate objects as defendants in a federal case? Weird stuff if you ask me.

Our government will do anything to piss off its citizens, such as having a shotgun as a defendant in a court case. Its just one more super stupid thing our government has done that we'll have to ignore

sorry, I dont mean to laugh, but come the "F" on!! this is clearly a waste of money. Too bad the defendants didnt get to "Shoot their mouths off to the plantiffs to defend themselves!" LOL good find op, things like this should be brought to light.. Not quite sure what to make of all of this though, got a good chuckle outofit! S&F

reply to post by gunshooter


It does of course strike me as funny but I could not for the life of me imagine how a gun or guns as in this case be named as defendants in a federal case. Maybe ignorance of the law is not such a bad thing. At least it is not so confounding.

This is not uncommon and has been going on for years. Most of the time you will see it as U.S. VS $10,000 or $100,000. This is how the government confiscates cars, houses, guns and everything else you see them using or selling at police sales. Those things that can't be directly confiscated by the criminal courts are sued directly in the civil courts which are basically just rubber stamps. The civil allegation is that the personal property was purchased with illegally obtained funds. It is then up to the owner to prove the funds were legal before they get their things back, which hardly ever happens. State and local courts are also involved in this more than the U.S. courts.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


It's as Nite_wing said.


www.justice.gov...

Criminal forfeiture is an action brought as a part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant. It is an in personam (against the person) action and requires that the government indict (charge) the property used or derived from the crime along with the defendant. If the jury finds the property forfeitable, the court issues an order of forfeiture.

This is a great website on forfeiture law in the US:

www.fear.org...

If you sue an object, it has no rights under the Constitution. Therefore you almost always win.

Thus the roots of Tyranny were allowed to take hold, in the name of the war on drugs.

Because of course, they were only going to seize Scarface's mansion, not your stuff. At least that's what they said at first.

reply to post by alpha chino


Reading that website and following the links there just really made me angry. I have always known since the time they were trying to sell the public on this law. They portrayed it as something that would not effect ordinary citizens and that they would use this to take Scareface's Mansion not your stuff.

I knew that it was going to be grossly abused as is any power created that is unconstitutional. I just had never seen the copy of the legal proceeding in a forfeiture case before today. It makes it all that much more sinister when you read exactly how this is done under the guise of or color of law.