The state can make that which is not by nature a crime into a crime, and it can make that which is by nature a crime not a crime on paper. That is precisely what the drug warriors have accomplished with civil asset forfeiture laws which allow the police to commit armed robbery against anyone carrying "too much cash" on them. The law may not call it armed robbery, but that is only because the state has carved out an exception for itself to simply take money out of the hands of people for no reason other than they have it on them and sometimes bad people have a lot of cash on them to facilitate a crime.
And yet some people wonder why I tend to be suspicious of anyone who voluntarily participates in drug law enforcement. The kind of man who can execute a civil asset forfeiture is either too stupid to understand the moral and constitutional ramifications of his actions or too morally bankrupt to care.
When the state can do whatever it wants, not being a criminal is absolutely no practical assurance that one will be free from harm.
And yet some people wonder why I tend to be suspicious of anyone who voluntarily participates in drug law enforcement. The kind of man who can execute a civil asset forfeiture is either too stupid to understand the moral and constitutional ramifications of his actions or too morally bankrupt to care.
When the state can do whatever it wants, not being a criminal is absolutely no practical assurance that one will be free from harm.
As someone in the comments to the reference article noted, the 4th Amendment has been passe for a looooong time.
The government commits government-approved theft each and every day for nearly 100 years via the income tax. Slightly more recent is the government-approved appropriation of a non-custodial parent's property via government-subsidized divorce and -enforced 'child support'. And the Kelo decision extended that principle from income and fruits of one's labors to real property.
Bottom line is that our stuff is on loan from Big Sister. Has been for years. The g-men are just getting more brazen, and are figuring out that they can get away with more and more.
I think there is one serious difference here: what the DEA did here was not even remotely justified. It was little more than a blatant armed robbery under the color of law.
And yet some people wonder why I tend to be suspicious of anyone who voluntarily participates in drug law enforcement.
I'd add the BATFE to that list. They won't just steal your completely legal gun, though; they'll modify it in their shop so that it's illegal, then lie in court about it so that you go to prison on a frame-up.
I'm not just suspicious of the BAT-men, I outright despise them as the henchmen of Satan that they are.
Mike, SCS found this">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0f9zHVHrRQMg0ssuar_7KsJsy9wD95UTGSG1>this. Bolsters the argument that the 4th Amendment is slowly being chipped away.
Thought that you may find it interesting.