mstdn.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 500 character limit. All languages are welcome.

Administered by:

Server stats:

18K
active users

Chris Downey

@peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans@mas.to I’ve never understood this … how is it not an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment?

@Chrisdowney @peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans of course it is. But it’s yet another point emphasizing how pointless the US constitution is. All that matters is the opinion of the median Supreme Court Justice

@Chrisdowney Because of the legal fiction/conceit that the exercise of state authority (jusrisdiction) is over the property itself, not the owner. If the *thing* is connected to a crime, then the *thing* can be seized by the state and ownership rights are not implicated - or at least subordinate to the penal authority of the state.

@peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans

@beckett @Chrisdowney @peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans Indeed conceited.

It is a 4th Amendment violation.

It’s either physics or made up. Human laws are made up. It is a violation not currently recognised by the Supreme Court.

It will be.

@Chrisdowney @peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans it’s not a 4th amendment violation under the “we want your stuff” principle of US jurisprudence.

@Chrisdowney AIUI it's never gone to the Supreme Court, and if it did there's a pretty good chance they'd rule exactly as you say — even Thomas thinks it's outrageous and has been saying so for years.
@peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans

@Chrisdowney @peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans Look, the 8th Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment but SCOTUS says to violate the 8th Amendment a punishment has to be both cruel AND unusual, not either/or, so all the horrible things that are regularly done to incarcerated people in this country don’t count.

Plain wording in the Constitution only means something if they *want* it to mean something.

@MisuseCase @Chrisdowney @peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans I had genuinely not seen this yet: "sure, it's CRUEL, but it's also pretty common, so what's the problem?"

And still 2A folks aren't buying into my proposition of "sure, you can own ANY firearm that was in common use in the 18th century, I have no concerns there."