[Arkinsaw]

OK then, you tell me, under what circumstances can the government seize property? Can it seize evidence in a criminal case?

Government is very limited in what private property it can seize. Is there a gun it thinks was used in a crime? Yeah. The house the gun was in? No.

You are debating fallaciously. I consider it a nuisance so the government must have power to seize it. People's liberty is affected by loud boomboxes and I don't like them so that makes extreme remedies okay. Government can seize crime evidence under certain circumstances so it must be okay to seize any damn thing I don't like.

Those are not logical arguments.

People's "liberty" being affected by boomboxes can be remedied by something other than giving government the power to seize private property.

You don't like it, so abusing government power is fine by you as long as its for something you agree with. You won't listen to any argument that points out that this is a precedent that could very well affect you. If it does affect you, if some visitor brings a bag of pot in your house unknown to you, and they seize your house. You will scream bloody murder on this forum.

I got it. You don't like boomboxes. So the government can use any power they want to stop it whether the founders intended them to have that power or not. As long as government does what I want, I want it to be all powerful.

That's not conservative by the way, its self serving.

[thoughtomator]

That's pretty in theory, but in practice when you adhere to the rule of law you need some consistent standard to say this is when and what you can seize, this is when and what you cannot seize. Unless you can admit to having some consistent standard, such as "property used by the accused in the commission of the crime for which he is accused" (which is reasonable in my book), then the practice of your position would mean that no private property could ever be seized by a government under any circumstances.

Now it seems you admit that a gun used in a crime, even though it be private property, can be seized. In this case, the car is being used as the weapon in the crime.

I think local communities have a right to enforce laws against disturbance of the peace. If the only practical way to enforce the peace is to seize the vehicles, then it is the drivers of such vehicles, and not the local government, that has made it so. They have no cause to complain if the law is clear and equitably enforced.

I don't buy the argument that this is an infringement of liberty when the activity engaged in has nothing to do with liberty and the persons engaging in it do not take responsibility for their actions.

The other folks, the ones whose sleep is shattered by rhythmic din late at night, have to be taken into consideration as well. Apparently your attitude towards those who, on their own private property, are trespassed upon by these omnidirectional sound cannons, is that they have no rights at all.

I don't agree with that conception. One man's liberty to swing his fist ends at the tip of his neighbor's nose. In such a case as this, the fact that the car is private property is mooted by the equal property rights of the far more numerous people who are disturbed in their own homes by it, and the wishes of the people as expressed by a government elected by them.

[supercat]

Government is very limited in what private property it can seize. Is there a gun it thinks was used in a crime? Yeah. The house the gun was in? No.

I see no reason the government should have the right to permanently seize items used in crimes (i.e. hold them beyond their need as evidence) except in cases where the item itself was criminally acquired. I know the government routinely does such things and gets away with them, but I see no legitimate basis for such behavior.

Otherwise, the possible punishments for crimes could vary way out of proportion to the acts committed, based upon whether the accused has anything the government wants. Arrest someone for loitering while they're look at their $5,000 Rolex too many times, get a free $5,000 watch (since they were "using" in their crime), etc.