"except they leave out the part they don't want you to read"
Please point out which part of the article "they don't want you to read". If anything, what they left out is more alarming than what they included.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-sconfiscatesep09,0,5658448.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
Read the full article and the first 20 of 117 comments posted. One person, who replied twice defended the new law; the rest did not.
Any law is based on a contract between the law maker and the group whom the law is/will be imposed upon. It must assume reasonable actions on both parties. Unfortunately, that basic assumption appears to be failing nation-wide. See Kellog vs. New London. See the various “big box” laws that have been passed.
The “law” is supposed to be neutral. It was neutral. Laws like this proves it is no longer neutral. It now depends on the “rational” act of a group of politicians.
How far can it go? Suggest you read American History 1942. In particular the history of California. To give you page and paragraph - the internment of natural borne Americans and seizure of their personal property by the American Government in the name of National Security. The lawyer that interned American citizens becauseof their race (no other American racial group was so treated)was Earl Warren (sp?) who became a member of the Supreme Court and headed the official investigation of Jack Kennedy’s assignation.
It took us 40 plus years to repay, at 1941 prices, what was taken by the State and Federal Governments in the name of National Security. PLEASE, do not assume that politicians in 2005 are any better than politicians in 1941- the human race and body politic don’t evolve that fast!