Change In Seatbelt Laws

[Freedomless]

Wearing a seatbelt should be decided by the man/woman. We are thinking men and women who are capable of making decisions for ourselves. A class action lawsuit is in order. This law is sitting there waiting for those who will be harassed and the rights abused. Do those who are elected think that they can pass a law and state that it will never be used to pull people over and then turn around in 20+ years later and say "click it or ticket". The time is getting ripe and the government is using bad judgment by trying to enforce this law. The true test will come to pass!

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by chuckhs12

I appreciate the comments that have been posted and do agree that there is times people will get hurt with seatbelts. In a lot of cases, it is due to the position they were in when the accident happens. The seatbelt law states that you must wear them, but they do not give the proper way.

again, I do not push the wearing of the seatbelt off on any one, unless they choose to. The main reason I encourage my kids to wear them, is that I had my youngest almost go through the windshield because he decided to not wear a seatbelt and I had to stop quickly. Luckily I was able to catch him before he hit the windshield.

If you get into any kind of an accident, any type of restraint device would possibly injure you. especially neck injuries in the case of a seatbelt.

whethter you choose to wear one or not is up to you. I am just giving my take on it.

Peace be with you.

Chuck,

When my daughter was very young, she is now 29, I used to put her in a child seat for her protection. I would do the same today. Children that young have no control and can easily be hurt. Their bodies are not form well enough to handle some of the situations that occur while in an auto. What I am saying is under certain situations I would use the restraint like you, because of my choice. It is not the job of some public servant to make it unlawful for me to wear a seat belt. If we put the joker in office it is his duty to do as the people wish. If the people wish to wear seat belts that is fine, but our so-called represenatives do not have the right to mandate that we do so.

This is off the subject of seat belts, but here is a case in point. When NAFTA was passed there were many more against it's passage than were for it that called into Congress and let it be known. Did Congress listen to the people? No, they passed it anyway, as they do with many so-called laws. Our supposed elected representatives do not represent the people that put them there, but the elite that actually run the country. They have been bought.

We are constantly being told we have a democratic form of government. I would love for anyone to show me in the Constitution the word democracy. You will not find it. The Constitution clearly says: Article IV, Section 4. "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. When I ask people if they know the difference between a democracy and a republic their eyes glaze over as if they haven't got a clue as to what you are referring too.

The problem as I see it is we have not only ignorant people running around, but also ignorant lawmakers that have never read the Constitution or they know full well what they do and do not care about the people. As a result we now have this uncontrollable cancer in our country called tyranny.

It is time people woke up and started letting our servants know we are fed up with what they are doing to our country and our freedoms. It is up to us to take care of our families and be free to do so without government involvement. Our so-called representatives are in place to protect those freedoms. Rather than being our protectors they have become our invaders. I am not against government, just those in office that have been corrupted, which is most of those reprsentatives in the District of Criminals.

I have listened to others like those on Quatloos and even Buck09 on this forum and it is no wonder we are in the mess we are in. The founding fathers warned us of what would take place if we became complacent. We are now reaping what we have sown. If you do not know why I fly the flag upside down, now you know. We are a country in distress.

[weasel]

"RS 32 §295.1. Safety belt use; tags indicating exemption
A.(1) Each driver of a passenger car, van, or truck having a gross weight of ten thousand pounds or less, commonly referred to as a pickup truck, in this state shall have a safety belt properly fastened about his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to those cars, vans, or pickups manufactured prior to January 1, 1981."

my cars are both pre-1981 by a long shot. So I should be ok.

[RickA]

I was listening to a DC radio station that was talking about how the law in Maryland was using.....get this.....night vision goggles, to see who was wearing and not wearing seat belts. If I would have had a drink of soda at that moment, I would have spewed it all over my winshield. That was some of the funniest stuff I have heard.

I wonder why 1981 was the start point at which seat belts are mandetory?

[Logan]

I have listened to others like those on Quatloos and even Buck09 on this forum and it is no wonder we are in the mess we are in.

I would not be surprised to know that QUATLOOS was directly run by the INFERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Its a witchhunt, and anyone who speaks about the proper application of the LAW is a blasphemous witch.

I was listening to a DC radio station that was talking about how the law in Maryland was using.....get this.....night vision goggles, to see who was wearing and not wearing seat belts.

Dang it, I thought I was safe driving at night, but them smokies must really want the revenue. I would tint my windows really dark, but they have a statute about that too. The statute actually excludes all law enforcement vehicles from liability under that statute, (go figure). They claim it is because of all their sensitive computer equipment they have by which they lawfully harass and extort you.

BTW, this statute LA RS 295.1 has a clearly stated penalty clause, but "speeding" statutes do not. Hmm, any thoughts?