Supreme Court Rules Against Excessive State Fines

[arakboss]

Take my kids.... and my wife, PLEASE!!

They'll send you a bill, every month. But hey it might be worth it.

 

[awshoot]

So, a guy using a vehicle to traffic drugs, gets convicted of said trafficking, keeps his tools for trafficking and gets a year of probation?

Way to go!

Maybe -- in this case though, the civil fine was 4x the maximum criminal fine allowed by law.

More to the point though, as I mentioned above, here we have an opinion written by a liberal justice (RGB) which used McDonald as a basis for the opinion. That gives McDonald more weight and anything that does that, is ultimately useful for the 2A. Any decision that reinforces the Bill of Rights is a positive.

Let's also remember that way good people lose their rights, is for courts to deprive bad people of them first. That's how the erosion of the BoR has been accomplished -- it is easy to say "whatever, dude was a dirtbag." 10 years later though, that ruling gets applied to everyone, even sweet old grandma.

 

[No_Regerts]

Maybe -- in this case though, the civil fine was 4x the maximum criminal fine allowed by law.

More to the point though, as I mentioned above, here we have an opinion written by a liberal justice (RGB) which used McDonald as a basis for the opinion. That gives McDonald more weight and anything that does that, is ultimately useful for the 2A. Any decision that reinforces the Bill of Rights is a positive.

Let's also remember that way good people lose their rights, is for courts to deprive bad people of them first. That's how the erosion of the BoR has been accomplished -- it is easy to say "whatever, dude was a dirtbag." 10 years later though, that ruling gets applied to everyone, even sweet old grandma.

If something aided you in committing a premeditated crime, you should lose it.

 

[RicInOR]

If something aided you in committing in committing a premeditated crime, you should lose it.

So, take a bus, loose rights to transportation?
Eat, before or after, can't go to Fred Meyer?
Walked on the sidewalk? Can't go out?

To paraphrase someone, you didn't commit that crime.



A typical use, is that a drug dealer sells drugs gets cash. Gets busted. Cash was a product of the illegal activity, gets seized.
By extension, the car he bought was done thru ill gotten gains, it too is seized. Just cause the crime he got busted for may have cost him a few months in jail, and a small fine, doesn't mean the other crimes done, that we didnt' catch, shouldn't be punished too if we have evidence, such as the car, or wad of cash.
What about when it is a house? Should his children be forced homeless? If he was dealing on the porch? How about if he didn't live with the children and the "baby momma" just provided the mortgage payment?

I think that many departments got to liking the confiscation of the ill gotten gains to the point they didn't care about convictions. Bust the guy, maybe not 100% kosher police work, doesn't matter, we got cash, guns, cars, property. He was a bad guy.

But tomorrow, you and I are likely to be the bad guy. We like guns, and that is out of favor.

What has always seemed very suspicious on the departments, is the confiscation without conviction, or even being charged. We "bust" someone, they are in on a "hold" we get their guns, jewelry, cash. Then the department or prosecutor does not charge the crime. The guy is gone. Just has to apply to get this stuff back ... right. And prove that it wasn't from ill gotten gains (you can't prove you didn't do something you didn't do)



You get charged under the "code-red" laws, all you have to do is apply to get your guns and ccp back. Good luck with that. You don't have to be convicted ... just accused ... "it's for the children"
Should they get your truck, cause used it to buy the bullets?
Your classic, cause that is what you were driving when you traded for your gun?
...


I know, that couldn't happen


... edit ...
an example of not needing water tight police work
C.I. Whose Heroin Buy Led to a Deadly Houston Drug Raid Does Not Seem to Exist

edit 2
And another
How the Feds Are Using Civil Asset Forfeiture to Threaten Free Speech

 

[No_Regerts]

So, take a bus, loose rights to transportation?
Eat, before or after, can't go to Fred Meyer?
Walked on the sidewalk? Can't go out?

To paraphrase someone, you didn't commit that crime.



A typical use, is that a drug dealer sells drugs gets cash. Gets busted. Cash was a product of the illegal activity, gets seized.
By extension, the car he bought was done thru ill gotten gains, it too is seized. Just cause the crime he got busted for may have cost him a few months in jail, and a small fine, doesn't mean the other crimes done, that we didnt' catch, shouldn't be punished too if we have evidence, such as the car, or wad of cash.
What about when it is a house? Should his children be forced homeless? If he was dealing on the porch? How about if he didn't live with the children and the "baby momma" just provided the mortgage payment?

I think that many departments got to liking the confiscation of the ill gotten gains to the point they didn't care about convictions. Bust the guy, maybe not 100% kosher police work, doesn't matter, we got cash, guns, cars, property. He was a bad guy.

But tomorrow, you and I are likely to be the bad guy. We like guns, and that is out of favor.

What has always seemed very suspicious on the departments, is the confiscation without conviction, or even being charged. We "bust" someone, they are in on a "hold" we get their guns, jewelry, cash. Then the department or prosecutor does not charge the crime. The guy is gone. Just has to apply to get this stuff back ... right. And prove that it wasn't from ill gotten gains (you can't prove you didn't do something you didn't do)



You get charged under the "code-red" laws, all you have to do is apply to get your guns and ccp back. Good luck with that. You don't have to be convicted ... just accused ... "it's for the children"
Should they get your truck, cause used it to buy the bullets?
Your classic, cause that is what you were driving when you traded for your gun?
...


I know, that couldn't happen


... edit ...
an example of not needing water tight police work
C.I. Whose Heroin Buy Led to a Deadly Houston Drug Raid Does Not Seem to Exist

All of that may be, but the people we arrest get charged and get convicted and go to prison (or jail sometimes). I don't waste time on stuff that won't stick and I'm not known for referring fluff.

Its not as simple as making some kid homeless because dad sold drugs out of it. Kid will go to a relative ir in foster care. There is PLENTY of advance notice that criminal activity can lead to a seizure of real estate property.

I think the mode in which we seize things up here will continue. I can't speak to what happens somewhere else.

 

[The Heretic]

If something aided you in committing a premeditated crime, you should lose it.

Like guns?

The way I understood it, it wasn't the vehicle that aided him in his crimes, unless you say it was because he drove it around.

This is pretty close to civil forfeiture. Gov agencies are not taking property because it aids the criminal in their crimes, but because it aids the agencies - they are going after items they can turn around and sell, so that they can go after more property.

 

[awshoot]

If something aided you in committing a premeditated crime, you should lose it.

Only if depriving you of that item is done in a lawful and constitutional manner. Anything else is a pure power play and one can never know who has power in the future -- better to hobble all power-hungry politicians to some basic rules.

My position is that we defend all of the Bill of Rights or else none will exist -- picking and choosing which fundamental right to enforce is the precise strategy that Antis are using to backdoor repeal the 2A.

If we were to put this into caricatures (which I generally don't buy, but just for fun), the Democrats would be saying "you don't need a semi-auto" and the Republicans would be saying "you don't need a proportional punishment".

 

[No_Regerts]

Like guns?

The way I understood it, it wasn't the vehicle that aided him in his crimes, unless you say it was because he drove it around.

This is pretty close to civil forfeiture. Gov agencies are not taking property because it aids the criminal in their crimes, but because it aids the agencies - they are going after items they can turn around and sell, so that they can go after more property.

Obviously, if a gun was used in a crime or the crime makes the suspect an automatic prohibited individual, absolutely.

If a car helped you move drugs, you lose it. If its a house that you own, you lose it. If its a house you don't own, I send the owner a notice saying you have a criminal enterprise on your property and are offer assistance in removing those individuals. If it turns out you are letting it happen.....well, you know.

 

[No_Regerts]

Only if depriving you of that item is done in a lawful and constitutional manner. Anything else is a pure power play and one can never know who has power in the future -- better to hobble all power-hungry politicians to some basic rules.

My position is that we defend all of the Bill of Rights or else none will exist -- picking and choosing which fundamental right to enforce is the precise strategy that Antis are using to backdoor repeal the 2A.

If we were to put this into caricatures (which I generally don't buy, but just for fun), the Democrats would be saying "you don't need a semi-auto" and the Republicans would be saying "you don't need a proportional punishment".

Totally agree. Do it clean with all due process afforded. Even better, remove excessive timeframes and punitive continuances. Prove the case, or leave it be.

 

[Hawaiian]

So a guy sells a shotgun to his best friend or neighbor without a BGC. If he sold it out of his car, should the car be forfeited. What if he sold it out of his house, should he forfeit his house?

 

[arakboss]

SCOTUS says excessive fees, fines (includes seizing of belongings) are not cool. I wonder how many seized magazines would be considered excessive?
Supreme Court vindicates all Americans' right to be free from excessive fines | Pacific Legal Foundation

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Unless I get fair market compensation, I just dont see myself or anyone else willingly surrendering property we've paid good money for.

 

[Mark W.]

Sorry I bought and paid for what I have And I have no plans on selling. So I sure not just going to give anything away.

 

[bolus]

I bet this changes nothing. You dont just take away the income of civil forfeiture from a city or police department.

City and state governments already write laws and ordinances that are straight up violations of the constitution. Why would this stop them?

 

[gunnails]

I love our Constitution.