I do not understand why the other thread was locked. Not at all. The too-obvious 2A angle is self-defense against robbers who flash police badges.
How do you handle that scenario?
Separately, why is anybody surprised? Government already violates the principle of consent of the governed. These particular tax-feeders decided to skip the process a bit. Instead of waiting for their "share" expropriated by coercion (taxes), they decided to skip ahead and just grab it. No surprise there.
Oh, sure, they're risible for being unsophisticated. If they'd had any sense, they'd have made a Terry Stop, brought in a drug dog, and then seized the cash as drug proceeds under asset forfeiture. In which case they woulda got the car, too. But, whether they were sophisticated is beside the point.
