>Threatening to seize the vehicle of a person who deliberately uses it to place others in danger, is completely different from governmental seizure of property as a punishment or as a general principle. I have a question for you: if somebody insists on running red lights because they perceive it as their constitutional right, how would you protect the public from such a tyrannical person? I challenge you to find a protective measure that cannot be argued to violate the rights of one individual in some fashion. IMHO that thinking is only possible if you ignore the rights of everybody else, which is not what the Constitution is about.
>
>I appreciate the concern that this may be the thin edge of the wedge, but government has to come up with solutions, not just complaints. I'm very happy to change my mind if somebody else proposes a protective measure that does not impinge an individual's rights more dramatically than the threat to confiscate their vehicle.

How do you know that the person deliberately used it to place others in danger? Running a red light might be intentional or accidental. It is a far cry from driving while drunk or under the influence of any substance.