Sort of an ambiguous ruling I see.
Essentially from what I gather from the article it provides protection for criminals (a heroin dealer in this case) from having property seized that they can show was not purchased from illegally gained monies.
Protection for the criminal.(No surprise there)
They have more rights then victims as we all know.
For gun owners all I see is they cant seize property (Firearms) unless it is shown to be obtained by illegal means.
Nothing saying the legislature cant make laws and impose fees for ownership.
Also it states excessive fees…
Who will determine what they consider excessive?
The Legislature? The Liberal Courts?
Not necessarily. These types of rulings provide collective protections for everyone because they limit the power of government. For example, my home state of Michigan can seize personal property for virtually any type of investigation, even petty crimes. They can keep the property without an arrest or conviction, and it doesn’t matter if the property was purchased with clean money.
This ruling is good for all gun owners, especially these days. It will probably help fight against unconstitutional Red Flag laws that states are passing now. Time will tell.