Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Grandmaster IndyDave1776's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I would start at the point where the government should not be allowed to redefine alleged criminal activity as a civil offense in order to circumvent the legal restrictions on dealing with the alleged offense under consideration.
    Government and pedophiles both practice buggering those powerless to defend themselves.

  2. #32
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    Heya chip,

    I'm not sure that actually helps. In civil court, the standard is (generally) proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. That is, it must be proven - but only barely more likely - that the forfeited item is linked to criminal activity. (These are broad brushstrokes.)

    The 4A that you quote dictates only probable cause. That is a standard easier to meet (but a bit higher than reasonable articulable suspicion). "Probably" is easier to prove than "more than likely."

    Maybe something more like, "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    I was referring primarily to the first clause, that the right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

    Are warrants even issued for "civil forfeiture" seizures?

  3. #33
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    I was referring primarily to the first clause, that the right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

    Are warrants even issued for "civil forfeiture" seizures?
    They can be to start the process, but the "seizure" doesn't allow the gvt. permanently deprive someone of property unless it is evidence of a crime, found to be forfeited in a criminal case (as opposed to civil forfeiture) or ordered to be sold for restitution, also as part of a criminal case.

    ...and "unreasonable". Obviously that doesn't mean "no seizure". It means that a constitutionally sound process must be used (warrant) for the seizure. Likewise "shall not be deprived of life liberty or property without dues process of law" doesn't mean "no deprivation"- it means, only after due process, again, defined by the courts based upon the Constitution.
    ​Bullies suck. They also make you stronger.

  4. #34
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by HoughMade View Post
    They can be to start the process, but the "seizure" doesn't allow the gvt. permanently deprive someone of property unless it is evidence of a crime, found to be forfeited in a criminal case (as opposed to civil forfeiture) or ordered to be sold for restitution, also as part of a criminal case.

    ...and "unreasonable". Obviously that doesn't mean "no seizure". It means that a constitutionally sound process must be used (warrant) for the seizure. Likewise "shall not be deprived of life liberty or property without dues process of law" doesn't mean "no deprivation"- it means, only after due process, again, defined by the courts based upon the Constitution.
    I don't think "no seizure" or "no deprivation" is the line at issue here. Personally, I think all implementation of "civil forfeiture" falls outside the line of constitutionality. The state is arguing that it is reasonable to seize an automobile if it was driven 5 mph over the speed limit.

  5. #35
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    I don't think "no seizure" or "no deprivation" is the line at issue here. Personally, I think all implementation of "civil forfeiture" falls outside the line of constitutionality. The state is arguing that it is reasonable to seize an automobile if it was driven 5 mph over the speed limit.
    ...and the Supreme Court said seizures have to be proportional as the 8th Amendment applies, so....

    I get that they are trying to argue that all property involved in the crime is subject to forfeiture, and assuming that they can prove that, and the underlying crime​ I would agree. I would limit it to actual crimes....and speeding is not a crime, normally.
    ​Bullies suck. They also make you stronger.

  6. #36
    Grandmaster IndyDave1776's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by HoughMade View Post
    ...and the Supreme Court said seizures have to be proportional as the 8th Amendment applies, so....

    I get that they are trying to argue that all property involved in the crime is subject to forfeiture, and assuming that they can prove that, and the underlying crime​ I would agree. I would limit it to actual crimes....and speeding is not a crime, normally.
    We aren't too far apart here. I would require it be proven that the property was acquired through the proceeds of a crime proven to have happened. This is a long way from grabbing any cash that isn't found in an envelope along with a bank receipt and property of third parties not participating in a crime, like hotel owners. It shouldn't be my burden to prove that the money I have came from granny stuffing cash in coffee cans since 1938 rather than supposing that my possession of cash the system can't account for is proof of criminal activity.
    Government and pedophiles both practice buggering those powerless to defend themselves.

  7. #37
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-trump-1411915

    Indiana Solicitor General mentioned in that article. Going to the 7th Circuit would be a YUGE promotion.

    IMHO, there were other reasons for the nomination to fade away.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  8. #38
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by HoughMade View Post
    ...and the Supreme Court said seizures have to be proportional as the 8th Amendment applies, so....

    I get that they are trying to argue that all property involved in the crime is subject to forfeiture, and assuming that they can prove that, and the underlying crime​ I would agree. I would limit it to actual crimes....and speeding is not a crime, normally.
    Are you saying “should” or “is”?
    -spreading the word to end the r-word is retarded
    -activism is retarded because, what if you’re full of ****?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge