Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 24,669
- Reactions
- 37,439
They'll send you a bill, every month. But hey it might be worth it.Take my kids.... and my wife, PLEASE!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They'll send you a bill, every month. But hey it might be worth it.Take my kids.... and my wife, PLEASE!!
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.
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
If something aided you in committing a premeditated crime, you should lose it.
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.
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".