Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;baseball21, post: 2829316, member: 76863&quot;]That&#039;s an easy answer, because of how it was done.&nbsp; They seized it first then &quot;proved&quot; that was right later and only after a law suit was brought against them.&nbsp; More than 90% of people wouldn&#039;t have the means to sue to try and get their property back and would just lose whatever was seized without a fight.&nbsp; People oppose it for the same reason they oppose the growing power of the police to seize property and money and charge them with a crime that don&#039;t have to go to trial.&nbsp; Most people just don&#039;t have the ability to fight if something is confiscated from them.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The precedent of take first and figure it out later is a dangerous one for individuals property, had they had the trial first and then the coins were taken people may not have liked the decision but would not have had anywhere close to as strong of feelings about it.&nbsp; The feeling is as much if not more about how it was done then the final outcome.&nbsp; Now we have a precedent for it, generally precedents and that power gets expanded overtime not contracted and a lot of people would rather not have to rely on blind faith that that will be an exception and not the start of a growing ability.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in