Dear President Obama: This Is How You Can Solve the Gun Problem

Column by G. Asher.

Exclusive to STR

The mass murder committed on the Danziger Bridge after Hurricane Katrina, the mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, the mass murder in Newtown, Connecticut… They are the stuff of nightmares. They rend the soul. They cry out for righteous action, for a swift and just solution.

Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Manchin, and Toomey sought to bring about meaningful change to our nation’s firearm laws with the eager assistance of mass media and most importantly, President Barack Obama. Sadly, they failed. Sure, there were some limited successes on the state level in a few places, but it is doubtful that many, if any of those new laws will withstand a challenge in Federal courts. Stupefyingly, the end result will not be a strengthening of firearm laws, but may in fact become a loosening of restrictions by the time it all shakes out.

There is a solution.

We already have a mechanism in place that allows for us to solve this problem, and it has already passed muster with Federal courts. The solution is US v. Sandini: .

In the Sandini case, the federal judges held that items or cash that have been used in a crime--or could be used in a crime--may be seized at any properly appointed law enforcement officer's sole discretion. This is the basis for civil asset forfeiture as it relates to the Drug War. Ever see a car driven by cops that has a statement on it that says something like "Seized from a drug dealer"? That was a Sandini-based seizure. When cops pull a guy over and take all his cash, that's Sandini again. There is no requirement for an arrest, much less charges or a conviction, before items may be seized as instruments relating to crime by the observing officer.

With that in mind, why not simply apply Sandini to guns? The cop pulls a guy over with a jackass "Cold, dead hands" bumper sticker and asks if he has any guns. The driver will most likely answer truthfully. The cop takes possession of the gun for "officer safety," then simply keeps it. If a cop goes to a house for a routine call, no matter how mundane, he should ask about guns. If the resident has any, the cop asks to see them, then seizes them under Sandini.

If the victim wants his gun back, he has to sue. Suit will cost more than the gun, and once the suit is won, the cops are under no real obligation to surrender the weapon back to the owner.

If President Obama simply asks state and local authorities to do this simple thing, there may be resistance due to a perceived lack of funding. The way to overcome this is with a cash program. Every weapon seized, provided it is a real firearm, is a $300 reward, $100 of which goes directly to the police officer making the seizure. An energetic cop could make an easy $30-40,000 a year extra by making gun seizures.

Civil asset forfeiture is an already proven and well accepted piece of case law. Nobody can argue that guns are not or could not be used to commit a crime. Sandini easily applies, so let’s apply it. Cops could sit outside of gun ranges and stores, wait for shooters to leave, pull them over on a pretext stop, then ask. If they feel the driver or occupants are being obstructionist, they simply arrest them for resisting arrest, then search the car incident to arrest. Once the guns are found, they are seized, and the cop can either maintain the arrest or allow them to go at his discretion.

Simple, easy, proven methodology. Let’s apply it. Let’s make the US a gun-free zone.

Safety from gun violence is well within reach. All it takes is the will to act and a little cash.

Your rating: None Average: 10 (1 vote)
Leonidas's picture
Columns on STR: 4


watkinsj8's picture

How can you justify keeping someone's property, after they have one the suit? What about having the right to property? And, where do you propose the funds to support the reward money comes from? We already live in a country that is broke, how can you justify rewarding anofficers theft?

mjackso6's picture

I believe that the author was being sarcastic, illuminating a loophole that could apparently very easily be used against gun owners, and his 'justifications' meant to illustrate the kind of drivel you'd expect to hear from the 'progressives'. At least, I hope he was being sarcastic...

watkinsj8's picture

I hope you are right. But I couldn't detect any sarcasm.

Mitrik_Spanner's picture

It seems this already the policy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA.

Glock27's picture

MITRIK: I would love to hear the Milwaukee story. You can't just do that without adding some kind of facts to it.
The Sandini gun grab sounds hypothetically possible, but I have serious doubts that anyone would even attempt to do such. However, there are a pile of stupid judges as well as ignorant ones.

ReverendDraco's picture

Please tell me this is satire. . . because it would end badly - with a lot of dead cops and dead gun owners. It could even be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back - and set off a civil war.

Jim Davies's picture

I join you, Rev Draco, and so think this satire makes for a most interesting article. It's correct; if the Feds really wanted to ban guns they could do it now with existing (though unconstitutional) laws about civil forfeiture.
So why do they bother debating "gun control"? - to distract the population and try to deceive us into supposing we still have some influence over them.
But if ever they acted on this existing power, yes: there would be a civil war.
Have you read John Ross' Unintended Consequences?

Glock27's picture

JIM: You have got to be kidding about the book. $247.11 for it (amazon). If you have the book maybe you could draw up a contract and let me borrow yours to read. I have never paid 247.11 for a book and I question that you have either. Maybe you have another source where it is within the range of the pockets of the membership here.

Glock27's picture has it for $60.00. That's getting closer. Barns and Noble is $170.00 Andhttp://www, shopping has it at $28.00. I have also located a free download. I chickened out on the free download as it was an unknown source for my system and I just had mine cleaned of garbage. But. I think someone on this site may have a download PDF of it.

Glock27's picture

ReverendDraco, I think it was a light hearted piece to loosen things up around here a bit, but it appears as if the editor mid-judged the heard.

Glock27's picture

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BOOK: When I chickened out it was too late the whole book was downloaded to my machine. So fare I seem safe, but that remains to be seen. Should you wish to download it for free go to your browser and type in the book name and author. On the lead sheet scroll down to Unintended Consequences John Ross-free e-books, Make user underneath it says (plus other flabber jabber), and you will be there. Good luck

Leonidas's picture

Hi guys.
There is a satrical bent to my suggestions, surely.  I am genuinely surprised that the cops haven't done this on their own. BTW, just in case you have any doubts about me or why I have written the article, just click here:
and especially here:

Jim Davies's picture

"Calm down and wait for adult supervision". Wow. You're one cool dude. Leonidas, yes.

Glock27's picture

LEONIDAS: My deepest, heart felt condolences to you for the crap you had to put up with. Ten years is not a speedy trial. That is an incredible tale I have read. I have to guess you are not alone in such miss-adventures. This in general makes one exceptionally nervous about any LEO. I try to extend some trust to them but it comes to be more difficult with the passing days.

Paul's picture

Actually, if you read the article without sarcasm or irony, it is still correct. Obama could do exactly as it says.

So why has he (and his ruling class controllers) not yet done it? Surely peasants must not be permitted to have arms.

I believe the answer is fear. That is the only thing stopping them. Not decency, not right, not Constitution. Just fear.

Glock27's picture

Fear is exactly what [o]bama wants to create in the masses, so I am confused with why he should even fear. The only thing I see as a possibility is the massive outpouring of citizens standing up for the second amendment. Would he be fearing a massive revolt from the peasants waving their bibles and toting their guns?

Never let a good crisis go to waste. I am waiting to see what he intends to do with the bombs--make you register them:). Is it a conspiracy? I would not be surprised, and I would not put it past him. This along with Sandy Hook buried Fast and Furious for him and the Bengazi affair, so maybe the Boston Marathon was a set up?