[ChildOfThe60s]

Poor generalization. Granted, the severity of the penalty is certainly debatable; this concept of confiscating vehicles is asinine.. But there is nothing anti-conservative about reining in public nuisances.

Conservatism does not advocate anarchy. Nor does it, or the Constitution, advocate unlimited freedom to do anything you please to disrupt public places.

Limited government is not at all at odds with minimum standards for public behavior.

[Arkinsaw]

Conservatism does not advocate anarchy. Nor does it, or the Constitution, advocate unlimited freedom to do anything you please to disrupt public place

But it doesn't allow the government to kill a citizen who is disrupting a public place, or hold him without trial.....or IMO seize his private property.

Especially in the case where the owner has not been charged with a crime but has to "prove" that the property was not actually used for illegal purposes...or where joint owners lose their share of property even when they did nothing wrong. We have had cases of that stemming from all this.

[webstersII]

"Granted, the severity of the penalty is certainly debatable; this concept of confiscating vehicles is asinine."

That was my real point, although I probably did not state it as well as I should have. Believe me, I hate loud music as much as anyone, but this law is quite punitive in the way it's currently written.

In addition, there are noise ordinances and laws against disturbing the peace that could already be used against this type of thing, so why would they need to enact new laws?