New law requiring helmets in california
- Thread starter Familyman
- Start date
The aftermarket SXS companies should be the ones suing to have this law reversed. I still do not believe that they can make this law retroactive; i don't care what the user manuals said all along, user manuals are not the law.
They cannot make something previously legal, illegal without reimbursement. "Ex Post Facto" is the term used to describe this: An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact") or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
I could NOT get a ticket for my 4 seater prior to this law. They cannot give me a ticket now. They can only say, after this date (Jan 2013), you cannot modify your SXS to place seats where they are not factory installed.
So, we need to get some legal clarity now, as they can amend the bill before it goes into affect.
What was said above about the ISA sounds nice and fuzzy, but trust me, as someone who was president of an ABATE Chapter in CA for 2 years, the problem with organizations like ISA and any others, is they become the livelyhood of their leadership, so changing laws that would negate their existence do not become their top priority, much like our state and federal government.
ISA should be taking legal donations and hiring a lawyer instead of worrying about "future influences". Sue, sue sue...just like the greenies do. Get an injunction on this law. That should be priority number one.
They cannot make something previously legal, illegal without reimbursement. "Ex Post Facto" is the term used to describe this: An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact") or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
I could NOT get a ticket for my 4 seater prior to this law. They cannot give me a ticket now. They can only say, after this date (Jan 2013), you cannot modify your SXS to place seats where they are not factory installed.
So, we need to get some legal clarity now, as they can amend the bill before it goes into affect.
What was said above about the ISA sounds nice and fuzzy, but trust me, as someone who was president of an ABATE Chapter in CA for 2 years, the problem with organizations like ISA and any others, is they become the livelyhood of their leadership, so changing laws that would negate their existence do not become their top priority, much like our state and federal government.
ISA should be taking legal donations and hiring a lawyer instead of worrying about "future influences". Sue, sue sue...just like the greenies do. Get an injunction on this law. That should be priority number one.
Here is a good example;
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution is clear concerning ex post facto laws, but that won’t stop the anti-gun left in Connecticut from making possession of high-capacity gun magazines – previously completely legal to buy and own – a felony unless you turn in the ones you own within 90 days.
Let’s look at the legal portion of this law and eventually we’ll get to the stupidity. As noted, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 specifically makes ex post facto laws – literally, after the fact – unconstitutional. You can not punish conduct that was lawful prior to the legislation becoming law. In the past, conduct – or in this case ownership of an item – that is made illegal in the future would be “grandfathered in.†In other words, if you owned it pre-ban, you could continue to posses and use the item.
From the clause…
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The United States Supreme Court considered what the definition of ex post facto was in Calder v Bull (3 US 386) – interestingly a case concerning the Connecticut legislature – in 1798. The opinion included the following definition which is relevant here.
Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution is clear concerning ex post facto laws, but that won’t stop the anti-gun left in Connecticut from making possession of high-capacity gun magazines – previously completely legal to buy and own – a felony unless you turn in the ones you own within 90 days.
Let’s look at the legal portion of this law and eventually we’ll get to the stupidity. As noted, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 specifically makes ex post facto laws – literally, after the fact – unconstitutional. You can not punish conduct that was lawful prior to the legislation becoming law. In the past, conduct – or in this case ownership of an item – that is made illegal in the future would be “grandfathered in.†In other words, if you owned it pre-ban, you could continue to posses and use the item.
From the clause…
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The United States Supreme Court considered what the definition of ex post facto was in Calder v Bull (3 US 386) – interestingly a case concerning the Connecticut legislature – in 1798. The opinion included the following definition which is relevant here.
Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Jeff Knoll
Carrera Performance
I have seen a lot of use of the words "They", & "Them" in this thread, So I have some questions in the name of clarity. Sorry if this sounds condescending, I do not mean it to, but I am not sure how to edit this to make it less abrasive.
Who do you propose should give us legal clarity?
Who is the the THEY that can amend this bill?
How best to fund this suit? Taking donations? Who will set that up?
We need a guaranteed stream of reliable income to fund a suit. Retainers are not cheap.
Who should would we hire to represent us? Vetting a firm requires someone with knowledge to do this.
I have a lot on my plate, and this is NOT my highest priority. Saving the largest OHV area in the US is exceeding my volunteer allotment of time currently.
Donations streams dry up. I have stressed out trying to make a Lobbyists payment more than once for Johnson valley, after promised donations don't show up. It takes a lot of $10.00 donations to fund a suit, and OHV users are not well known for making donations.
Why wait for someone else? When are you filing? Where do I send my $10.00 donation?
If UTV owners had a seat at the table UTV owners would have the ability to file. But would it make sense? Would it be money well spent? Can you reverse a law like this by a lawsuit, and at what costs?
The average length of a suit is multiple years. Its too late to present a bill to the state congress this session, but you can submit and lobby a bill amendment in far less time. This thing only took 6 months from concept to reality. IMHO you have to have manufacture support for a lawsuit, but you are basically going against what they want. Aftermarket? Are they going to want to take on the burden, and at what cost to them? We are in a pretty tough economy and cash is in short supply.
As far as the livelihood of leadership. Apathy from membership is what allows leadership to stop acting in the best interest of its members and continue to collect a paycheck. Just like our government officials. We have never needed term limits, we have that power in the voters booth, most just don't exercise that right.
Just a thought but:
2. 38604: A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not ride with a passenger, unless the passenger, while seated upright with his or her back against the seatback with both feet flat on the floorboard, can grasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety harness properly fastened.
Wouldn't this violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against amputees? Since the definition of ROV is being defined by the law and the use of ROV's would include public land, the State government would be in violation of ADA Title II: State and Local Government Activities (Title II requires that State and local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities (e.g. public education, employment, transportation, recreation, health care, social services, courts, voting, and town meetings).
Maybe some vets can approach the DAV??
Just thinking outside the box here
2. 38604: A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle shall not ride with a passenger, unless the passenger, while seated upright with his or her back against the seatback with both feet flat on the floorboard, can grasp the occupant handhold with the seatbelt and shoulder belt or safety harness properly fastened.
Wouldn't this violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against amputees? Since the definition of ROV is being defined by the law and the use of ROV's would include public land, the State government would be in violation of ADA Title II: State and Local Government Activities (Title II requires that State and local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities (e.g. public education, employment, transportation, recreation, health care, social services, courts, voting, and town meetings).
Maybe some vets can approach the DAV??
Just thinking outside the box here
Jeff Knoll
Carrera Performance
Jeff you have said what I have been saying for years! Look at my early ISA posts and I stated that we need to be like the NRA and recruit members into an organization that focuses Riding and Land accusation and use, not so much racing as it has limited broad appeal! But that seems to be the direction ISA took, are you suggesting a new focus or a Sub-organization within the ISA to get the job done??
The ISA was a collaborative effort from the start. It was born from a discussion on Rules, but Land use and advocacy have been in its over all agenda from the start. We did not put as much weight into that as we should have, and I take on that responsibility. I offer no other proof that it has been a consideration then our bylaws. We have been meeting as often as needed, and we have gained little traction attempting to organize a national set of racing rules. Personally I am extremely busy, and have little to gain from from the creation of an association like the ISA, so it has not been my highest priority. But I firmly believe it is needed. To answer your question on Sub Committee, no Its a portion of our mission statement.
I know lawyers who do Glamis and there are legal foundations who might take up the cause? I would approach the NRA for land closures when they might effect hunting and target shooting? We need to be one voice dedicated to Off-Road! Be inclusive instead of exclusive!
The ASA uses David Hubbard through its Ecologic Partners relationship. ORBA is one of the three members of Ecologic Partners, I have a call with them in 20 minutes. Your one voice argument is good, but has proven difficult.
BTW it is call the Tea Party and it is easier to steer and conservative party that is in place than to do the third party deal, no one wins in those races, we just get what we have! Third parties suck!
Third parties suck? Both our current parties started as Third parties. We don't have the two they replaced any longer. Took me most of my adult life to learn to stop voting for the less of two evils. I am a card carrying and financial supporter of the Libertarian party now. Most of teh republicans I know are actually libertarians, they just don't know it.
The ISA was a collaborative effort from the start. It was born from a discussion on Rules, but Land use and advocacy have been in its over all agenda from the start. We did not put as much weight into that as we should have, and I take on that responsibility. I offer no other proof that it has been a consideration then our bylaws. We have been meeting as often as needed, and we have gained little traction attempting to organize a national set of racing rules. Personally I am extremely busy, and have little to gain from from the creation of an association like the ISA, so it has not been my highest priority. But I firmly believe it is needed. To answer your question on Sub Committee, no Its a portion of our mission statement.
I know lawyers who do Glamis and there are legal foundations who might take up the cause? I would approach the NRA for land closures when they might effect hunting and target shooting? We need to be one voice dedicated to Off-Road! Be inclusive instead of exclusive!
The ASA uses David Hubbard through its Ecologic Partners relationship. ORBA is one of the three members of Ecologic Partners, I have a call with them in 20 minutes. Your one voice argument is good, but has proven difficult.
BTW it is call the Tea Party and it is easier to steer and conservative party that is in place than to do the third party deal, no one wins in those races, we just get what we have! Third parties suck!
Third parties suck? Both our current parties started as Third parties. We don't have the two they replaced any longer. Took me most of my adult life to learn to stop voting for the less of two evils. I am a card carrying and financial supporter of the Libertarian party now. Most of teh republicans I know are actually libertarians, they just don't know it.
Jeff Knoll
Carrera Performance
Thank ORBA, AMA D 37, and the ASA for these answers. They come from Ecologic partners, paid by the those three associations.
Just got off the phone with David Hubbard and the leadership of The three associations listed above. Here is some more information.
1.) Ex Post facto. Does not apply, It would only apply to giving you a ticket for something you did before the bill became law. Example A.) I get pulled over for no helmet next weekend, and they write me a ticket on Jan 1st for that infraction. Example B,) requiring me to smog my 2005 PSD Ford truck. I did not need to get a Diesel smogged when I bought it, but now I do. Same as all the Commercial trucks that are now illegal in the state.
2.) Lawsuit Not a lot of legs unless you can find a plaintiff who can file on the grounds of constitutionality. e.g violates the civil rights of a handicap person. Where you run into problems is two places IMHO with this approach. a.) Watch what you wish for because the manufacture will get heat in the suit, and the vehicle may become very different as a result. b.) The maunfacture operational guide clearly states the requirements that a rider must meet the basic limitations. BTW this is why a lawsuit would be difficult any other way.
3.) Who would fund this. As debated earlier, political ramifications within our industry.
4.) It passed unanimously, who would carry any amendments to the bill?
5.) Can you get around the law with some modifications? Helmets is pretty cut and dry, as is the belts, so that leaves the floor board. I know of two people who are already proto-typing sub floors. I also believe you can change the classification of your 2 seater that was converted to 4 seats to special construction. That gets you around the floor issue IF......
6.) Enforcement. (According to the folks on the call tonight) There is already some talks inside state parks on how best to enforce this. Because it is a California law, I assume BLM and USFS will look to Ca state parks LEO on what is what. Perhaps the next move is influence there?
I will see what I can find out from my contacts at State Parks later this week.
Again this info comes from Ecologic partners they pay the attorney and foster the brain trust that I got this info from.
Hope this helps, sorry if it burst anyone's bubbles.
Just got off the phone with David Hubbard and the leadership of The three associations listed above. Here is some more information.
1.) Ex Post facto. Does not apply, It would only apply to giving you a ticket for something you did before the bill became law. Example A.) I get pulled over for no helmet next weekend, and they write me a ticket on Jan 1st for that infraction. Example B,) requiring me to smog my 2005 PSD Ford truck. I did not need to get a Diesel smogged when I bought it, but now I do. Same as all the Commercial trucks that are now illegal in the state.
2.) Lawsuit Not a lot of legs unless you can find a plaintiff who can file on the grounds of constitutionality. e.g violates the civil rights of a handicap person. Where you run into problems is two places IMHO with this approach. a.) Watch what you wish for because the manufacture will get heat in the suit, and the vehicle may become very different as a result. b.) The maunfacture operational guide clearly states the requirements that a rider must meet the basic limitations. BTW this is why a lawsuit would be difficult any other way.
3.) Who would fund this. As debated earlier, political ramifications within our industry.
4.) It passed unanimously, who would carry any amendments to the bill?
5.) Can you get around the law with some modifications? Helmets is pretty cut and dry, as is the belts, so that leaves the floor board. I know of two people who are already proto-typing sub floors. I also believe you can change the classification of your 2 seater that was converted to 4 seats to special construction. That gets you around the floor issue IF......
6.) Enforcement. (According to the folks on the call tonight) There is already some talks inside state parks on how best to enforce this. Because it is a California law, I assume BLM and USFS will look to Ca state parks LEO on what is what. Perhaps the next move is influence there?
I will see what I can find out from my contacts at State Parks later this week.
Again this info comes from Ecologic partners they pay the attorney and foster the brain trust that I got this info from.
Hope this helps, sorry if it burst anyone's bubbles.
Jeff Knoll
Carrera Performance
Lets save the party debate for a person to person discussion and keep this thread on track. I look forward to talking about this around a campfire.
As far as ISA its more than paying dues, we need passionate people who want to make something like this work. Even if we have polar opposite views we need to have that process to get the best product. You and I have banged heads plenty, but I respect your passion and commitment. We need activation, not just check writing. That's where we are short.
I am leaving my office now, I will check back tomorrow.
Jeff Knoll
Carrera Performance
Get a Teryx 4, pay for it with your state check then crash into a wall and sue the state for giving you money to buy it. This world is insane. You must wear a seatbelt, you are required to wear a helmet (some states) but you can go to a liquor store and buy a can of chew, a pack of cigs, a Monster, a Jolt, a coffee, a bag of sour gummy bears and a chemical cheese stick. You can take it all home and make a Diabetes Daiquiri and play video games until you die and that's legal. But using your hard earned money to buy a fun family toy and then paying a professional to modify it into a 4 seater is illegal. Makes sense to me!!!!! Damn Idiots.
ROTAX
CannedHam - La Familia
Jeepinbeav
Leave It To Beaver - UTVUnderground Approved
Those dumbass politicians dont realize the impact that it can have in the long run when people stop going to Cali to Glamis, hollister hills,dumont, and others and such. The money it brings in the gas, fast food, paying to use the area they are going to ride at. Its all tied in when people vacation, the millions/ 100s of millions in long run cali will lose the douches shot there economy in the foot on this one.... Plus it doesnt just affect Cali it will affect other states i see so many plates from back east those other states will lose out on alot of money also from those who will now may not be going because of this, from those who migrate many times a year to those places to take there families and utv's to enjoy cali.
WE ALL NEED TO SEND THOSE LETTERS I DID
WE ALL NEED TO SEND THOSE LETTERS I DID
Every-one has some great ideas on how to repeal this new law
How-ever I don't believe it will work. Its just to costly.
What I believe will work and save us all a lot of money
When the law takes effect on 1-1-2013 just do-not ride in Caliphony
Do-not get or buy that ohv green sticker.
I would bet the house that we would only have to do this for 1 year.
This law would be repealed faster than the speed of lighting.
Solution is to ride out-side of Caliphony.
How-ever I don't believe it will work. Its just to costly.
What I believe will work and save us all a lot of money
When the law takes effect on 1-1-2013 just do-not ride in Caliphony
Do-not get or buy that ohv green sticker.
I would bet the house that we would only have to do this for 1 year.
This law would be repealed faster than the speed of lighting.
Solution is to ride out-side of Caliphony.
I tend to agree, getting to the original author of the bill may be the best way to get it amended.
He is a republican so we may stand a chance to get him to listen.
Although he's also a politician so if his lips are moving he's probably lying.
Similar threads
