Artifact crackdown is call for caution

Judged:

1

1

1

Art a phat wrote:

Gee-I thought this was America where we have a Constitution!Where one is innocent until proven guilty. Where article 5 says your personal property cannot be siezed and there is whats known as a "takings" provision protecting your property.Even a liberal administration should adhere to those principles shouldn't it?

Judged:

2

2

1

P_Katz wrote:

<quoted text>
If your "personal property" consists of items stolen from public lands, you bet your bippy it can be seized. The proceeds of criminal activity aren't protected by the Constitution.

TruettCollins wrote:

<quoted text>
It is taken too far....many of these "artifacts" come from PRIVATE LAND. I guess you and many fools out there would have rathered me to plow through pots when planting my fields than to take them home and set them on display. Since when are we in the United States of America consdered guilty until proven inocent? Your attitude is a slap in the face of TRUE AMERICANS.

Judged:

1

1

P_Katz wrote:

<quoted text>
If your "personal property" consists of items stolen from public lands, you bet your bippy it can be seized. The proceeds of criminal activity aren't protected by the Constitution.

Judged:

2

2

1

TruettCollins wrote:

<quoted text>
It is taken too far....many of these "artifacts" come from PRIVATE LAND.... Since when are we in the United States of America consdered guilty until proven inocent? Your attitude is a slap in the face of TRUE AMERICANS.

Judged:

2

P_Katz wrote:

<quoted text>
As the editorial points out, most artifacts in the Four Corners area come from PUBLIC lands and are therefore subject to federal laws governing those lands. If someone in that area has an extensive collection of artifacts with no documentation of where they were found, it's a reasonable assumption that most of them came from PUBLIC lands and are, therefore, illegal.
As for the "guilty until proven innocent" argument, let's say that the police, in the course of executing a warrant for stolen property, confiscate 20 TV sets from someone's garage. It's possible that the person actually bought one or two of those sets and possesses them legally. But is it logical for the police to refrain from confiscating all 20 TV sets on the off chance that one or two of them AREN'T stolen? Same principle here.

Judged:

1

TruettCollins wrote:

<quoted text>
On every other type of theft it would be alegedly came from public land, till the time it was proven in court that they did not. How ever in this case they are judged by the media and you as guilty in many cases before charges have even been charged.

TruettCollins wrote:

<quoted text>
On every other type of theft it would be alegedly came from public land, till the time it was proven in court that they did not. How ever in this case they are judged by the media and you as guilty in many cases before charges have even been charged.