If a person is not convicted of a crime, nor accused of a crime, what basis is there for seizing their property? That is a fundamental right in the US Constitution, similar to the gun ownership aspect we both hold as important.
Anyone can be accused of a crime, and probably convicted of "something". In the nearly 30 years of living in CA, they average 1500 new state laws per year, so over 40K laws, on top of what we already had. What are the odds that the average person has any idea what these are ?
Is it really the same basis, to seize property, especially cash, for misdemeanors vs serious felonies ? Are you saying it is ok for a police officer to pull over your wife because she made a small driving error, and take your paycheck while she was on the way to deposit it in the bank? It was against the law - right ?
Suppose you are on your way to the shooting range with 3 of your nicest rifles, and you do a rolling stop. Is it ok for the police officer to "suspect that you might be on your way to a crime", seize your guns, keep one for the local agency, give one to the FBI, and the other to the state police?
After that, they can spend up to 1 year before making a "decision" on whether or not to charge you, during which time you cannot legally do much of anything. Regardless of if they decide to charge you or not, after this year period, you have to hire a lawyer to sue them to get back your rifles. This process can drag out another 1 - 2 years, and typically costs $2-5K in legal fees.
Are you really sure that you support this concept?
EDITED: 2 Feb 2016 16:16 by HARRYN