Got a different link or the cliffs notes version?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No matter what good might come from particular incidents of civil asset forfeiture (and yes, there are some good outcomes), their rampant abuse leads me to the conclusion that they should be entirely prohibited. Get a criminal conviction on a person, though, and that's something completely different.
X3No matter what good might come from particular incidents of civil asset forfeiture (and yes, there are some good outcomes), their rampant abuse leads me to the conclusion that they should be entirely prohibited. Get a criminal conviction on a person, though, and that's something completely different.
SCOTUS says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/
In a grander sense, this could be a good sign for 2A.
No matter what good might come from particular incidents of civil asset forfeiture (and yes, there are some good outcomes), their rampant abuse leads me to the conclusion that they should be entirely prohibited. Get a criminal conviction on a person, though, and that's something completely different.
Dittos. It’s like all other good intentioned liberal social engineering projects. It don’t work as envisioned. Similar to LBJs war on povertySays that it is not "civil asset forfeiture" it is "civil asset theft," government should not be stealing property without a conviction. Law enforcement should not be incentivized to steal property. The current system harms those who don't trust the financial system (those who don't keep money in banks) and now some banks don't want to do business with firearm manufactures those people could be target for civil asset forfeiture if they end up cash only businesses.
This is all being said the Republican Party of Texas Convention which is happening this week in San Antonio. There are those who are supporting a plank for the Republican Party to oppose "civil asset forfeiture/theft."