And, what... he should receive more sympathy for his stupidity because of this?

Nah I could really care less if he looses his liscense or not. I was just pointing out an instance of some guy fighting these types of laws.
Posted via RS Mobile

How is the analogy even comparable? You aren't allowed to possess firearms without a license, so of course the government is well within its rights to seize illegal firearms.

You're not reading my response. I don't think there's ANY circumstance where the govt can go in and seize a private vehicle before there is any proof of actual damage caused.

I don't disagree with the concept of civil damages. If the government/individual sues another individual in civil court for damages, and the court awards a monetary sum, the defendant should be required to pay this amount through traditional methods (cash, garnishing of wages, sale of assets etc). If the defendant does not pay the judgement, then the govt can come in to seize and liquidate an asset. Civil courts award damages for actual damages, not potential damages. Furthermore, they compensate real victims, not people (govt) that sues on behalf of "society."

Protecting society from aggressive drivers who have the *potential* to cause harm is in the scope of the MVA with its listed laws, regs and penalties
You haven't answered how it is fair that the same offense results in different penalties depending whether I was driving a Ferrari or a Civic?

Again, the evidence is clear that the drivers in those examples did not get into any accidents, thus there is no "damages" that should be awarded to anyone. The scope of the MVA is to spell out the laws and penalties for traffic offenses.