North Carolina Get High Marks For Its Asset Forfeiture Policy

Latest Polls (view all)

Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?

98.9% No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.

1.1% Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.

0% "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?

Click Here to Vote
91 Vote(s)

View all Polls

North Carolina Get High Marks For Its Asset Forfeiture Policy

Published: Sunday, June 21st, 2015 @ 3:45 am
By: John Locke Foundation ( More Entries )

Publisher's note: The author of this post is Jon Guze, who is the Director of Legal Studies for the John Locke Foundation.

A new report from FreedomWorks gives North Carolina's asset forfeiture program an A-, the second highest score in the country. In explaining North Carolina's high score, the report cites two factors: (1) "The government can only forfeit property if the owner has been convicted of a crime;" and (2) "Law enforcement does not receive any of the forfeiture funds." The only reason we didn't earn a perfect score is that, "After a conviction, the burden is on the property owner to show why his property should not be forfeited."

Shifting the burden to the government might be something we should think about; nevertheless, as I've said before, North Carolina's enlightened approach to asset forfeiture is one of the many reasons I feel so lucky to be here!

Economic Freedom Takes a Hit in Alabama

Back in March, writing about the US Supreme Court's decision in NC State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC. I said:

The Court's decision had the effect of upholding the FTC's original charge against the Board, so it will no longer be able to maintain a monopoly on teeth whitening in North Carolina. That makes it clearly a good result for non-dentist teeth whiteners and their customers.

But, I also emphasized that:

The Court's holding is very narrow. It may be a step in the right direction, but it's a short step, and it does not take us very far towards a legal system that fully protects economic rights.

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Alabama illustrates just how far we still have to go. On June 5th the Institute for Justice announced that:

Today, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a 2011 law that gives licensed dentists a lucrative monopoly on teeth-whitening services and prohibits teeth-whitening entrepreneurs from operating in the state. The ruling means customers will pay higher prices for fewer choices because only licensed dentists can offer teeth-whitening.

"Today's ruling doesn't protect public safety; it protects licensed dentists from honest competition," explained IJ Senior Attorney Paul Sherman.... "Literally millions of people have safely whitened their teeth at home using products bought online or in stores that are identical to those sold by our clients. The Alabama Supreme Court has allowed dentists to regulate their competitors out of existence for no good reason."

The IJ's clients in the Alabama case included one from North Carolina who had benefitted from the US Supreme Court's decision in the earlier case:

For IJ client Keith Westphal, who operates a successful teeth-whitening business in North Carolina,...today's ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court is a setback. "I was eager to expand my business into Alabama, to offer new services and help create new jobs," said Westphal. "It makes no sense that the government would prevent me from doing that, especially in light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling. Today's decision isn't just bad for me; it's bad for consumers and job-seekers in the state of Alabama."

Something to Celebrate

Monday marked the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, an event that is worth celebrating, not only because the Great Charter played such a decisive role in establishing the Anglo-American tradition of individual rights, limited government, and the rule of law, but also because — even after eight centuries — its language lives on in many contemporary legal documents, including the North Carolina Constitution.

If you're still looking for a suitable way to commemorate the occasion, why not attend the John Locke Foundation's celebration, which will take place on Thursday, June 25th at 6:30 p.m. at Campbell University Law School, 225 Hillsborough St., in Raleigh. For more information, or to register, click here.

Go Back