Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

New limits on seizures for G&F violations in the future?

VikingsGuy said:
Because crime or not it is your personal property and the government cannot simple take it without cause. That cause can be penalty, but that penalty must not be excessive per the constitution. So if I park a $60,000 SUV in a no parking zone it would be unreasonable to create a $60,000 fine for a parking violation by seizing the vehicle. Also, there are due process problems because if one person commits a crime with a $2,000 vehicle and another commits a similar or lesser crime with a $50,000 vehicle the punishments are grossly different regardless of the crime or the actor. Plus, while you may drive your vehicle to buy drugs, you may also drive your vehicle to get to work or to take your elderly mother to the doctor, it is not just simply “equipment” of the crime.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but that's like saying a poacher convicted under due process shouldn't lose his rifle because he also likes to shoot it at legal things. There needs to be more skin in the game...It's REALLY easy NOT to be a poacher!
 
In 2017, Wyoming HP took $92,000 from a guy in a traffic stop. He was never charged with a crime. A judge had to force WHP to return it. Anyone who supports due process and limited government power should celebrate the SCOTUS decision. Anything to diminish civil asset forfeiture is a cause for celebration in my book. Imagine if a game warden took your rifle and hunting gear because they personally suspected you poached but didn't actually have enough evidence to charge you.
 
Last edited:
VikingsGuy said:
Just for clarity's sake, I am as anti-poacher as anybody, but, poaching punishments should be (and are) bounded by the 8th amendment. There are far worse crimes than poaching, and far lesser crimes, they are all bounded by the 8th amendment. If poaching is a misdemeanor and misdemeanors have a max penalty of $10,000 (merely an example), then seizing a $50,000 vehicle is by definition excessive. Make it a felony, give them jail time, raise the penalty maxes for misdemeanors generally, there are all kinds of ways to amp up the consequences, but leaving the laws in their current state and letting a local G&F office fund their new photocopier by (entirely under their discretion with only the smallest amount of judicial oversight) taking your vehicle because you fire a gun too close to a road should not be lawful in a first world country - this is banana dictator stuff.
Click to expand...

How often do people actually lose their truck for shooting too close to a road? I personally know a dude who got caught shooting deer under spotlight from his truck (in MN), and he just got like $450 fine, didn’t lose his truck. He went right back to shooting deer afterwards except he kept all his shenanigans like that to out of state trips.

IDk. A much younger me got my bow seized for bow fishing carp before carp season, which is patently absurd to have a bow fishing season on carp but I won’t get into that. I ended up getting back from the CO a few months later because he couldn’t find any dead pike in the stream, cause that’s what he thought I was up to. Kinda crazy they could take stuff without due process so maybe you’re right.
 
There is a little bit of hyperbole floating around this thread.
 
Go to places like NY city that unjust civil forfeiture out of control and you agree that this ruling is long over due.
 
LuketheDog said:
I understand your point, but that's like saying a poacher convicted under due process shouldn't lose his rifle because he also likes to shoot it at legal things. There needs to be more skin in the game...It's REALLY easy NOT to be a poacher!
Click to expand...

I didn’t intend to make that exact parallel and said twice gun seizures probably survive scrutiny because of the direct and immediate relationship to the crime and the reality that most gun values are below the max penalties for poaching. Skin in the game is created by legislatures setting appropriate penalties and judges handing out those penalties, not a local sheriff funding his new patrol cars by deciding to seize a couple of pickups.
 
NR_Hunter said:
How often do people actually lose their truck for shooting too close to a road? I personally know a dude who got caught shooting deer under spotlight from his truck (in MN), and he just got like $450 fine, didn’t lose his truck. He went right back to shooting deer afterwards except he kept all his shenanigans like that to out of state trips.

IDk. A much younger me got my bow seized for bow fishing carp before carp season, which is patently absurd to have a bow fishing season on carp but I won’t get into that. I ended up getting back from the CO a few months later because he couldn’t find any dead pike in the stream, cause that’s what he thought I was up to. Kinda crazy they could take stuff without due process so maybe you’re right.
Click to expand...

It is sporadic and not very transparent (which is part of the problem), but enough of this that it congress and SCOTUS are working to reign in.
 
Tom Fischer, our solicitor general who argued Timbs to the SCOTUS contended that the state could seize a Bugatti for a speeding violation if it wanted to, and the 8th Amendment wouldn't apply. The on the ground reality is that some police forces have gotten addicted to the revenues from forfeitures. I firmly believe that a reigning in of the forfeiture laws that have become abusive was warranted. However, stiff fines and seizures for game law violations can still be supported. The agencies have to be prepared to articulate the rationale for the penalties.

Another thing that is noteworthy, the Timbs decision used the $10,000 fine as a tool for comparative analysis. I think that amount was set in the 1970's and arguably could be adjusted upwards at this point to account for significant inflation, but please don't tell anyone in Indiana I said that.
 
First off, speaking in generalities, I find punishments for poaching to be severely lacking. I take all stories, a couple good ones on here, about abusive game wardens with a huge grain of salt as they usually come from folks who just don't like the government, regulations, or who actually did the crime and just want to piss and moan. Lastly, I think substituting more jail time, instead of forfeitures, as some have suggested, is a terrible idea. Jails in rural areas, where a lot of poaching takes place, is already overcrowded-mostly with meth heads. Maybe you have plenty of space in the Twin Cities, but it's not like that here
 
jtm307 said:
In 2017, Wyoming HP took $92,000 from a guy in a traffic stop. He was never charged with a crime. A judge had to force WHP to return it. Anyone who supports due process and limited government power should celebrate the SCOTUS decision. Anything to diminish civil asset forfeiture is a cause for celebration in my book. Imagine if a game warden took your rifle and hunting gear because they personally suspected you poached but didn't actually have enough evidence to charge you.
Click to expand...


remove s from https if necessary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Drill Baby Drill !
Replies
15
Views
2K
u1299
U

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,055
Messages
1,945,113
Members
34,992
Latest member
bgeary

Share this page

Back
Top