Folks,
I read this thing from ABATE and I think one main fallacy is that ABATE can negotiate claiming to represent the "motorcycling community." Now, it is possible that the real "motorcycling community" including sport bike riders, etc., might be less offended by the bill given that sport bikers are less likely than Harley riders to ride bikes with aftermarket pipes. But one thing we might do, if it looks like ABATE is going to go along with this compromise shit, is to prepare a position paper on behalf of BOLT CA, and suggest that we are the ones or some of the one's who they are going to have to deal with, because historically we have been the ones who have brought the litigation to challenge motorcyclist legislation. And we can cite to the federal injunction in the Easyriders case against the CHP, and the Bianco decision, and I guess, the fix-it ticket case.
I phrase it that way because I don't have a legal argument yet that I think is viable, hence it is just the threat that if the law is enacted they are going to find themselves in court, without specifying our legal grounds. But I think we might cause them some doubt about their legislative legal reviews, as they certainly had similar legal reviews suggesting that the helmet law was legal, before enacting the legislation, yet both the law had to be rewritten by the Courts in Buhl and Bianco, and the CHP enforcement of the law was determined to be unconstitutional. I think that we can also suggest that this will effect the invested property rights of many many thousands of riders across the state, and that it will be an enforcement nightmare for the CHP, also taking resources away from real crime issues.
This is a decision that should be made by BOLT of California, yea or nay. I think we should also want to get some information about what ABATE will do. We could prepare our position paper, in the form I've suggested or in some other form consistent with the views of everyone, and have it at the ready. And then if ABATE makes the decision to compromise, then we jump to undermine their authority to compromise on behalf of the motorcycling community. I think we should also want to know the major players involved in the legislature so that we can immediately send out the position paper.
The only other thing that I can suggest as an idea, and I don't know if it is a good idea, just throwing it up on the wall to see if it sticks, perhaps we can notify ABATE CA that if it enters into a compromise on this that we will inform the sponsor and legislature that ABATE of CA doesn't speak for the motorcycling community on this, so that ABATE can consider whether it really wants to compromise, knowing what we will then do. But I wouldn't want to get into the legal issues or our reputation as the legal eagles. Rather that we will state that ABATE doesn't represent us and cannot compromise for motorcyclists. Again, if we consider doing that, my feeling is that we should do that as an organization rather than as individuals writing to Sarge. It sounds like he is getting a lot of e-mails and reading between the lines he is trying to soften the disappointment many will feel, asking folks to "come together" in whatever he and his cabal decide upon.
Those are my thoughts at the moment and I welcome your criticism.
