Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

SCOTUS and Timbs v Indiana

13»

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    By the way, I make no excuses for enforcing the laws.
    That's downright scary. Seems I heard that line before in the days following the Great Depression. 
    Billy Budd, speaking of the Great Depression, you might want to look up and read a little on the Bonus Army, the veterans of WWI. U.S. Troops were used to break up a peaceful demonstration in Washington, D.C. of these veterans. Not the first time, nor the last, that Federal troops were used against the civilian population, a clear violation of the posse comitatus act. The troops were lead by a couple of officers that would become famous WWII generals.

      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,668 Senior Member
    Gene,
    With all respect, you haven't a friggin' CLUE as to what my world view is, and your comments show this.
    I'm done with this conversation - all its doing is raising my blood pressure - you OBVIOUSLY don't get the FACT that we as a nation are wasting - repeat WASTING billions of tax payer dollars on something that doesn't work, never has worked, never will work. I don't like drugs any more than you do - Hell, I don't even drink alcohol! But the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and expecting different results. YOU WILL NOT GET DIFFERENT RESULTS in the case of the "war on drugs" which has NOTHING to do with the war on communism which frankly, we as a nation are about to LOSE thanx to Liberalism.
    I have spoken.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 1,057 Senior Member
    Agreed Zorba. This is a circular conversation, so I’m out.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Gene L said:
    By the way, I make no excuses for enforcing the laws.
    That's downright scary. Seems I heard that line before in the days following the Great Depression. 
    Billy Budd, speaking of the Great Depression, you might want to look up and read a little on the Bonus Army, the veterans of WWI. U.S. Troops were used to break up a peaceful demonstration in Washington, D.C. of these veterans. Not the first time, nor the last, that Federal troops were used against the civilian population, a clear violation of the posse comitatus act. The troops were lead by a couple of officers that would become famous WWII generals.

    I read that although the troops were ordered by Hoover to clear the lawn, it was Douglas MaCArthur that gave the order to fire. I've not confirmed that with any alternate sources.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    I doubt you were born during the Great Depression.  Be honest.
    Since you were born tired and haven't got rested up enough to Google it for yourself, I'll spoon feed you the link. Whether you're rested up enough to click on the link is all on you.

    And since I'm in a generous mood, I'll give you not 1, not 2, but THREE links. To be ignorant of history is no shame, as it can be corrected, but to be willfully ignorant and deny the history exists is the mark of a liberal socialist wishing to erase that history.





    Violation of posse comitatus ring a bell? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller. Bueller?



      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    As far as the war on drugs, I don't suppose it would be a good idea to moderate some of the mandatory punishment policies, so that the rights of a free society aren't jeopardized from their own protection?

    Alcoholic beverages are legal but regulated. We as consumers are assured of correct information as to potency, and some effort is expended as to legal age to purchase and standardized places that sell it.

    Yet we're sold the idea that all regulation is bad or that no regulation is disastrous. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, moderation has become illusive.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Gene L said:
    I doubt you were born during the Great Depression.  Be honest.
    Since you were born tired and haven't got rested up enough to Google it for yourself, I'll spoon feed you the link. Whether you're rested up enough to click on the link is all on you.

    And since I'm in a generous mood, I'll give you not 1, not 2, but THREE links. To be ignorant of history is no shame, as it can be corrected, but to be willfully ignorant and deny the history exists is the mark of a liberal socialist wishing to erase that history.





    Violation of posse comitatus ring a bell? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller. Bueller?



    There are exceptions, which you're free to investigate.  In 1959, Eisenhower used federal troops to enforce desegration laws in Mississippi.  GW Bush during the LA riots. 
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    And I think you are confusing "due process" with seizure.  All seizures have to go through a due process procedure.  I think those who identify with liberal causes are liberals, if not recognized as such,  but I'm willing to modify my opinions if I'm wrong. I'm concerned that those who don't understand "due process" are inserting personal prejudices into legal decisions. 
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    The Wall will be a big help in stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the US. If Congress ever does their job and funds it.

    You guys arguing with Gene................well, he would argue with the Devil until Hell freezes over.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    All seizures must go before a judge.  They can be contested, as this one is, but oftentimes they're not..  This isn't state law, it's Constitutional boilerplate..
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    What you described is not what happens and is only theoretically possible.  Not in reality.  It would take a nationwide criminal conspiracy including all LE agencies and judges.  Not going to happen.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    Probably what happened (emphasis on Probably) is he delivered the heroin in his Range Rover, thus being an instrument of the crime.  The seizure went before a judge (or it wouldn't be at SCOTUS) and was deemed a legal seizure.  Also, it's NOT Timbs and SCOTUS v Indiana.  It's Timbs v Indiana.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member

    Tyson Timbs, the plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, was arrested in 2015 after selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and he was sentenced to one year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. Additionally, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.

    Since this is a case of Criminal Asset Forfeiture why is the discussion including many arguments concerning Civil Asset Forfeiture

  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 said:

    Since this is a case of Criminal Asset Forfeiture why is the discussion including many arguments concerning Civil Asset Forfeiture

    This particular case revolves around the 8A and is solely about excessive fines/punishment. Timbs was sentenced and fined $1200 and then had his $42K Rover seized. Again, the state of Indiana has stated they can legally seize a car for going 5 MPH over the limit. Indiana also argued 8A does not apply to the states. The Court asked if the SG understood "incorporation".  

    So the question...what is excessive?  

    If Timbs had the heroin at his house, could the cops seize the house and everything in it? What if it was his mother's house? Yes, cops have taken assets not belonging to the offender simply because they were driving a car or residing inside the home. 

    How far do we allow this to go? Is jaywalking a reason to take the cash from the offender's wallet? Or seize a Gucci purse? I'm serious...

    We already have junkies, dealers, smugglers, etc and all of the societal problems that come with them. We spend $58B on enforcement each year and this has doubled since 2009. Maybe we should consider an alternative to no-knock warrants, road piracy under color of law, flash bang grenades in cribs, and a million prisoners with no history of violence. There were 600,000 arrested and charged in 2017 for simple possession of weed. My money can be better spent. 
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    If Timbs wins, he wins and will make new law. 
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    If Timbs wins he may get to keep his car. That is if it wasn’t auctioned already or some sergeant isn’t driving it around. There’s no “new law” unless the court defines excessive. If there’s no measurable definition, the cops will continue seizing and poor defendants will try to fight in court. Same with Heller. The case was won, but reasonable restrictions was mentioned and no lower court has ruled for a defendant. Reasonable and excessive are too ambiguous, thus meaningless. 
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement