I still don't see how this can be legal.

In article .com>, Harry K wrote:
> On May 25, 5:40 am, N8N > wrote:
>> On May 25, 2:04 am, Old Wolf > wrote:
>>
>> > On May 24, 11:29 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>> > > Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville either
>> > > tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio driving home.)
>> > > I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then again, I'll be driving
>> > > up to Columbia for a training class tomorrow.
>>
>> > What's wrong with that?
>>
>> > It's been 30 years or more since most of us realised
>> > that wearing seatbelts is a good idea , if you don't
>> > have a death wish.
>>
>> It's not the "seatbelt" I have a problem with, it's the "checkpoint."
>>
>> nate
>
> Yep. I don't see why a checkpoint is needed. Easy enough to check
> for their use, at least on the driver, without stopping cars.

Because they want checkpoints. The seat belt is an excuse to sell it to
the moron masses.

Old Wolf > wrote in
ps.com:

> On May 24, 11:29 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville either
>> tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio driving home.)
>> I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then again, I'll be driving
>> up to Columbia for a training class tomorrow.
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> It's been 30 years or more since most of us realised
> that wearing seatbelts is a good idea , if you don't
> have a death wish.
>
>
>

That is no reason for an unconstitutional roadblock.
People have a right to travel freely without interference (no due cause for
a stop).
Roadblocks are essentially illegal searches,no warrant,no probable cause,no
LEGAL reason for a traffic stop.

Don't you CARE about your Constitutional rights?
you seem willing to surrender them easily.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Old Wolf > wrote in
ps.com:

> On May 24, 11:29 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville either
>> tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio driving home.)
>> I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then again, I'll be driving
>> up to Columbia for a training class tomorrow.
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> It's been 30 years or more since most of us realised
> that wearing seatbelts is a good idea , if you don't
> have a death wish.
>
>
>

In regards to my last post,I forgot you are from New Zealand,and have no
Constitutional rights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Harry K > wrote in
oups.com:

> On May 25, 5:40 am, N8N > wrote:
>> On May 25, 2:04 am, Old Wolf > wrote:
>>
>> > On May 24, 11:29 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>> > > Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville
>> > > either tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio
>> > > driving home.) I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then
>> > > again, I'll be driving up to Columbia for a training class
>> > > tomorrow.
>>
>> > What's wrong with that?
>>
>> > It's been 30 years or more since most of us realised
>> > that wearing seatbelts is a good idea , if you don't
>> > have a death wish.
>>
>> It's not the "seatbelt" I have a problem with, it's the "checkpoint."
>>
>> nate
>
> Yep. I don't see why a checkpoint is needed. Easy enough to check
> for their use, at least on the driver, without stopping cars.
>
> Harry K
>
>

the checkpoint is for OTHER reasons;to find other crimes (without a
warrant),and to arrest wanted criminals.

definitely an end-run around the Constitution.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Old Wolf > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
>> On May 24, 11:29 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>> Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville either
>>> tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio driving home.)
>>> I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then again, I'll be driving
>>> up to Columbia for a training class tomorrow.
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>>
>> It's been 30 years or more since most of us realised
>> that wearing seatbelts is a good idea , if you don't
>> have a death wish.
>>
>>
>>
>
> In regards to my last post,I forgot you are from New Zealand,and have no
> Constitutional rights.

He has rights, but the government where he lives may not recognize them
nor may the laws of that nation protect them. (I am not familiar with the
law in New Zealand) A person has rights from birth, the US constitution
doesn't grant rights, it acts to protect them. Some it names outright,
others are not named but the individual still has them.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville either
>tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio driving home.)
>I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then again, I'll be driving
>up to Columbia for a training class tomorrow.

There was one athwart one of the major routes to the Joisey Shore this
morning. The radio station (KYW-1060) was being very cagey about it for some
reason. Rather than say it was a seatbelt check tying up traffic,
they talked about "click it or ticket" and then mentioned "police
activity, you know what we mean". Not sure if it's corporate policy
not to mention the checkpoints, threats from the police, or just the
on-air people trying to be cute.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>John David Galt wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville either
>>>tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio driving home.) I'm
>>>so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then again, I'll be driving up
>>>to Columbia for a training class tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> Checkpoints of any kind are clearly illegal, but as long as the police
>> control all the prosecutors' offices, who's going to bust them for it?
>
>I guess my point was, where's all the outraged letters to the Washington
>Post et. al.?

The Washington Post is FOR them. If they print a letter against,
it'll be a foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical one, carefully misedited to
make the writer look like an even bigger idiot.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Murderous Speeding Drunken Driver wrote:
>
>> No driver licensing? That's not very smart. Though it ain't much, that
>> licensing process does weed a small number of inept drivers from the
>> herd. As crappy as drivers are, I'd hate to see how much worse they
>> would be without some form of regulation.
>
>Licensing is essentially a useless step as it is implemented. Even after
>losing said license people drive anyway. The tests are so dumbed down
>that the most difficult part is the eye test, and even then, the mostly
>blind can still manage to pass it seems.

Yep. The main use of licensing nowadays is to keep those who still
have respect for the law, and those whose licensed status is regularly
checked, in line.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

John David Galt > wrote in
:

> Harry K wrote:
>>> Considering all the cases that have gone through the court system,
>>> it must be constitutional. I would think that it must have been
>>> appealed up the line at some time. DUI checkpoints have been ruled
>>> legal so that would open the gate.
>
> Supreme Court rulings do not determine constitutionality. The
> constitution says what it says, period, and nobody has any authority
> to "interpret" it. Supreme Court judges, like all other officials,
> swore an oath to obey it and somebody needs to enforce it on them.
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Most states altered their licensing so that when one accepts their
>> DL,they automatically WAIVE their Constitutional rights in some
>> regards.
>
> That's why we should never have accepted driver licensing (a violation
> of our right to travel) in the first place. Whatever gives the state
> illegitimate power is itself illegitimate.

Here we go again.

Doug

N8N > wrote in
ups.com:

> On May 25, 2:04 am, Old Wolf > wrote:
>> On May 24, 11:29 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>> > Apparently there is a SEATBELT CHECKPOINT on 355 in Rockville
>> > either tonight or tomorrow night (just heard it on the radio
>> > driving home.) I'm so glad I don't live in MD anymore, but then
>> > again, I'll be driving up to Columbia for a training class
>> > tomorrow.
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>>
>> It's been 30 years or more since most of us realised
>> that wearing seatbelts is a good idea , if you don't
>> have a death wish.
>
> It's not the "seatbelt" I have a problem with, it's the "checkpoint."
>
> nate
>
>

The checkpoints must be different there. There was a "seatbelt
checkpoint" on PA 309 just north of Tollgate Rd in Quakertown, PA on
Wednesday. It consisted of a State Trooper in his patrol car on the
concret island with his flashers on and a sign in front of his car that
said "Seatbelt Checkpoint". Traffic was just continuing on it's usual
way.

Doug