Vehicle Should Be A House

[Tiler_J]

Or maybe a car in a house?

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404359478.513968.jpg

That's just stupid!

[QH's Paw]

Dodges aren't bad. I mean they're affordable, right?

[Tiler_J]

[Tiler_J]

[Tiler_J]

[Bootlipkiller]

Or maybe a car in a house?

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404359478.513968.jpg

That's just stupid!

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404359907.819951.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404359913.338735.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404359918.913657.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404359924.003404.jpg

[Tiler_J]

[Tiler_J]

[waterfowlman]

Boot's driving school ??

[Bootlipkiller]

Someone stoled your cabin at the club

[Tiler_J]

Someone stoled your cabin at the club

Look closer, it's too nice to be my cabin.

[Tiler_J]

[Tiler_J]

[Tiler_J]

I kind of want this one! It would be a fun hunting truck.

[Bootlipkiller]

Glimmerjim's camper at graylodge

[Tiler_J]

I went on an all day drinking bender in one of these before. We called it a Booze Cruise, hit a bunch of bars and drank in it between stops. It was a lot of fun.

[Tiler_J]

Glimmerjim's camper at graylodge

Haha! We will have to stop by there and fill it up with booze. He will have to sleep outside.

[Glimmerjim]

Did you just say vociferous?

Yeah, AK. I always liked dinosaurs!

[Glimmerjim]

Dodges aren't bad. I mean they're affordable, right?

Perfect QH!

[assateague]

I don't understand your position at all, at. You are such a vociferous proponent of state's rights, and now you want either a national policy to override state's laws, or simply no policy whatsoever, but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

I want no such thing.


Q: Is your car and it's components governed by the laws of the state it is registered in, or the state you are driving through?
A: The state it is registered in.


Q: Why are the contents of the car any different?
A: No good reason has been presented yet.



Hypothetical: If a state required a vehicle driving through to first stop and pass their emission checks, would that be ok with you? Because hey, state's rights and all that. I'm not asking for the federal government to be involved in any way, shape, or form. What I am saying is your car should be treated as your house, and subject to the laws of the state it is registered in. (Your "home state") Why, you ask?

-What insurance you must carry is governed by your home state, not the state you're driving through.
-Vehicle maintenance/emissions/inspections are governed by your home state, not the state you're driving through.
-Vehicle composition (window tint, tire clearance, bumper height, etc) is governed by your home state, not the state you're driving through
-Your driver's license is governed by your home state, not the state you're driving through (as I've said earlier, in NJ you must be 17 to get a driver's license- why are 16 year olds licensed in other states allowed to drive in NJ at 16? Isn't that a "preemption" of their states rights, which says you must be 17 to drive? Of course not.)


None of my argument pertains to moving violations, of course. Only to the contents of the vehicle. Why doesn't this make sense?

[assateague]

I don't understand your position at all, at. You are such a vociferous proponent of state's rights, and now you want either a national policy to override state's laws, or simply no policy whatsoever, but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

Maybe I'll phrase it a different way. You said:

but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

The states have no ability to enforce their insurance laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.
The states have no ability to enforce their driver licensing laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state driver.
The states have no ability to enforce their emission standards laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.
The states have no ability to enforce their vehicle standards laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.

So why is it such a stretch when I say that the contents of a vehicle should be treated the same way, and that doing so would no more infringe on a states rights than any of the things I mentioned above, which they don't have any jurisdiction over, either.

[Glimmerjim]

G-jim. I am offering a defense of assa here (tho he is most capable of his own rebuttal). State's rights Amedn 10), according to Constitution, are applicable to everything not specifically covered under national policy of the Bill of Rights preceding A10. Thus you can call Obama a **##$ blankety blank in any state, and be covered not by state law but rather 1 Amend; plead the 5th in any state's court; bed down any suypermodel (Amend 3) etc. So why should not our 2nd Amendment rights not be uniform across all states?

I understand what you are saying, Bayside, and it's a good, well-conceived, and communicated, point. I guess what throws me on it is that we already have such a disparate set of gun laws state by state that I can't understand why this particular one is being focused upon. CA as opposed to AZ. Texas compared to NYC. (I realize NYC is not a state [ ] but the same concept would seem to apply to local rights.
As I said, however, you make a good point I will have to think about. What other instances are there when considering state's rights that are accepted prima facie? Damn....thinking gives me headaches, that's why I try to do it so seldom!

[Glimmerjim]

I don't understand your position at all, at. You are such a vociferous proponent of state's rights, and now you want either a national policy to override state's laws, or simply no policy whatsoever, but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

Maybe I'll phrase it a different way. You said:

but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

The states have no ability to enforce their insurance laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.
The states have no ability to enforce their driver licensing laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state driver.
The states have no ability to enforce their emission standards laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.
The states have no ability to enforce their vehicle standards laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.

So why is it such a stretch when I say that the contents of a vehicle should be treated the same way, and that doing so would no more infringe on a states rights than any of the things I mentioned above, which they don't have any jurisdiction over, either.

Gotcha, at. Bayside helped me understand it, too. In re all of your above examples, I had frankly never considered them before. I suppose I have to admit that that I always thought that the various state laws would apply in these cases, also. They are certainly not constitutionally based as Bayside explained to me. Why can speed laws be state mandated and enforced at the state level regardless of what the speed limit is in your state of residence, but not these other factors?

[Bootlipkiller]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404365792.982822.jpg

[Tiler_J]

[AKPirate]

[assateague]

I don't understand your position at all, at. You are such a vociferous proponent of state's rights, and now you want either a national policy to override state's laws, or simply no policy whatsoever, but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

Maybe I'll phrase it a different way. You said:

but somehow, under some unstated aegis, the states have no ability to enforce their own laws within their own jursidiction.!

The states have no ability to enforce their insurance laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.
The states have no ability to enforce their driver licensing laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state driver.
The states have no ability to enforce their emission standards laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.
The states have no ability to enforce their vehicle standards laws within their own jurisdiction on an out of state vehicle.

So why is it such a stretch when I say that the contents of a vehicle should be treated the same way, and that doing so would no more infringe on a states rights than any of the things I mentioned above, which they don't have any jurisdiction over, either.

Gotcha, at. Bayside helped me understand it, too. In re all of your above examples, I had frankly never considered them before. I suppose I have to admit that that I always thought that the various state laws would apply in these cases, also. They are certainly not constitutionally based as Bayside explained to me. Why can speed laws be state mandated and enforced at the state level regardless of what the speed limit is in your state of residence, but not these other factors?

It's a moving violation. You are DRIVING there, and subject to their laws regarding driving, but the CONTENTS of your car are (or should be) covered by the laws in your home state. Your car has already been demonstrated to be a little traveling house (see "TilerJ's Pictures, et al)

[banknote]

I'm with you, just seems like it'd be impossible to get 50 states on board. Or 48, 49, whatever. Maybe tie it to interstate funding and limit reciprocal "pass through zones" to Interstates and rest areas?

Shit, then it'd be federal.

I don't know.

[Glimmerjim]

Oh man...too cool. I want one!

[Glimmerjim]

It's a moving violation. You are DRIVING there, and subject to their laws regarding driving, but the CONTENTS of your car are (or should be) covered by the laws in your home state. Your car has already been demonstrated to be a little traveling house (see "TilerJ's Pictures, et al)

I understand what you are saying, but it is a dilemma, Should it be brought to attention, a minor change to state reciprocity laws would be all that it would take to eliminate this situation. Much like refusal to take an alcohol test results in severe repurcussions for all effects and purposes the same as a DUI, all each state would have to stipulate is that their laws are only for areas within their jurisdiction and do not apply elsewhere. The onus of understanding and applying the vehicular laws, including but not limited to all of the examples you posted, of another state are on the driver. One sentence in the DMV handbook.
Really, it's moot, however. If state's rights were ever to expand dramatically, border crossing and expansions of security checks would increase exponentially. But what the heck. Could be a job creator.When you were speaking to Red of Googling various states laws to determine the applicability and difference of other states, what gives him the authority to enforce laws not on the books within his jurisdiction. For this could work both ways, I would assume. Let's say a guy from Texas comes to WA for a vacation. While there he buys a couple grams of hash oil and is subsequently busted. Should the officer enforce the laws of the driver's state, or those of his own state? You must have a lot of atty friends , at, because your proposal is a freaking GOLD MINE of litigation!