Although I loathe poachers, I loathe any form of pre-conviction asset forfeiture even more.
One effect of asset forfeiture is that the penalties of a crime are rather open ended and inconsistently applied as you noted in the case of one man losing a Lexus and another losing a POS for the same crime.
Yup, we must be ‘gifted’ because we can see the obvious.
If killing an endangered mud-hen is a crime, my punishment would mean the forfeiture of my $80 single shot 20 gauge; your punishment is a $25,000 Browning limited edition over/under. How is this equitable? My confiscation portion is neglible, and yours is excessive.
If we are both poaching ducks, and I have a sleeping bag, old tent, and a 250cc scooter that I use in my endeavors; and you use a $250,000 camper with a $50,000 Bass boat, with a Lexus SUV - how is it fair that my punishment in confiscation is pushing $750 and your is going to be over $350,000 for the exact same crime?
Now, when it comes time to going in front of the judge, we’ll likely both get equivalent fines and sentences - but this whole confiscation view point is not only blatantly unfair, is’t unconsitutional.
If we were to get arrested for Exhibition Driving, speeding, running a stop sign, reckless endangerment, eluding police and a DWI, the police cannot confiscate our cars. Then why do these same officials seem to think that confiscating guns is somehow different? I can point to a Constitutional Ammendent that addresses the right to bear arms. I see no right anywhere with regard to vehicles.
“Although I loathe poachers, I loathe any form of pre-conviction asset forfeiture even more.”
Pre-conviction asset forfeiture is nothing but poaching with government guns.