Would this cause an uproar if introduced?


PDA






evan price
November 13, 2008, 03:58 AM
If the following bill were introduced, would it cause uproar in the general public?


HR 10200 IH
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 10200

High-Powered Vehicles Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2009
To end street racing, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2009
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
________________________________________
A BILL
To end street racing, and for other purposes.
To which the Congress has recognized the capacity for damage and harm due to vehicles which are overpowered or possessing of features that make them capable of racing on the street while remaining legal to operate on the public thoroughfares, as well as the capacity for flight from pursuing law-enforcement vehicles and has decided to take action:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `High-Powered Vehicles Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `High-Powered Vehicle' means any of the following:
`(A) The following autos or copies, replicas or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Ford Mustang, GT350, GT500KR, Cobra, Mustang GT, Mustang SVO, Roush, Saleen, Turbocoupe, Shelby, Mercury Capri;
`(ii) Chevrolet Camaro or Pontiac Firebird;
`(iii) Buick Grand National, Turbo or GNX ;
`(iv) Dodge Charger, Challenger, Magnum, SuperBee, SuperBird, Viper, Plymouth Barracuda;
`(v) Chrysler Crossfire;
`(vi) Ford GT, Crown Victoria P71, Mercury Marauder;
`(vii) Ferrari, Aston-Martin;
`(viii) Maserati, Pagoni;
`(ix) Porsche 911, Carrera, Turbo, 928, 944, and the like;
`(x) BMW M & Z series & Mini-Cooper, Mercedes SLK & SLR, Audi TT;
`(xi) Subaru WRX & STi, Mitsubishi 3000GT and Eclipse;
`(xii) Honda Civic Si, Prelude, Civic VTEC, S2000, Acura Integra, Acura NSX, Acura TSX, Acura Vigor;
`(xiii) Nissan Skyline, 200, 240, 260, 280, 300 or 350 Z- or ZX cars, Infinity G, J, Q;
`(xiv) Toyota Supra, Supra Turbo, Celica GTS, Celica All-Trac, Corolla GTS, Corolla Type “R”, MR2, Lexus LX, LS, ES, GS;
`(xv) Mazda RX 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, Miata, MazdaSpeed;
`(xvi) Lamborghini;
`(xvii) Striker, Koenigsegg, Jaguar, Jensen;
`(xviii) Lotus Esprit, Turbo, Elise, and others;
`(xix) TVR, McClaren, Pontiac GTO, GXP;
`(xx) Corvette, ZR1, Z06, Mallet, Cadillac Northstar or CTS-V; or
`(xxi) DeTomaso Pantera, DeLorean, or Bugatti Veyron
`(B) The following trucks or copies, replicas or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Ford F150, F250, Lightning, Splash, SVT;
`(ii) GM Sierra, Silverado, Avalance;
`(iii) Dodge Ram, Jeep;
`(iv) Toyota Tundra, Tacoma; or
`(v) Nissan Titan.
`(C) The following SUVs or copies, replicas or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Hummer;
`(ii) Ford Expedition or Excursion;
`(iii) GM Suburban;
`(iv) Dodge Durango, Jeep Cherokee.
(v) Toyota Sequoia, 4Runner, Lexus GX/LX 470; or
(vi) Nissan Pathfinder Armada, Infinity 56.
`(D) Any automobile or light duty truck that has an internal combustion engine and at least one of the following--
`(i) a larger diameter exhaust system;
`(ii) a supercharger, turbocharger or forced induction or nitrous oxide system;
`(iii) a rear spoiler that stands above the rear bodywork or sheet metal;
`(iv) a custom body kit or shroud;
`(v) non-OEM wheels & tires;
(vi) Stickers, decals, artwork, or graphics such as are typically found on racing vehicles;
(vii) Modified ECU, PCM, or other device intended to alter the output of the engine; or
(viii) A High-capacity Fuel-feeding device.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), any vehicle with the capacity of producing over 150 brake horsepower.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an electric vehicle that has no means of internal combustion.
`(F) A street-legal vehicle that has the ability to accept a larger engine, and has--
`(i) a forced induction system;
`(ii) a higher-capacity fuel metering device;
`(iii) a large diameter exhaust system; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a raised spoiler extending above the rear bodywork.
`(G) A medium-duty truck that is registered as a non-commercial vehicle.
`(H) A boat or marine conveyance that has any of the following--
`(i) a motor larger than 25 BHP;
`(ii) a jet drive;
`(iii) the ability to accept a larger engine; or
`(iv) a fuel capacity of larger than 5 gallons.
`(I) A motorcycle of larger than 200 cc displacement.
`(J) A frame or vehicle that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or vehicle of, a vehicle described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit or “kit car”.
`(L) A vehicle originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a vehicle based on the design of such a vehicle, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a vehicle procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a vehicle shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the vehicle is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36) High-capacity fuel metering device- The term `high-capacity fuel metering device' means a device intended to replace or augment the fuel metering system for the motor such as fuel injectors, throttle body, carburetor, direct injector, fuel pump, injection pump, or similar device whose only purpose is to increase the amount of fuel available for the engine to consume over the factory original specifications and increase power.
`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a nonracing vehicle into a street-racing vehicle if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
`(38) Large Diameter Exhaust System - The term `large diameter exhaust System' means an exhaust muffling device or any other component of the exhaust system which is intended to increase power above factory levels such as a turbo muffler, glasspack muffler, flowmax or flowmaster muffler, exhaust tubular headers, or dump pipe.
`(39) Forced Induction- The term `forced induction system' means any device contained in or attached to or any means by which an internal combustion engine may increase or boost the cylinder compression ratio, including turbochargers, superchargers, whipplechargers, rotochargers, Miller cycle, or ram-air.
`(40) Modified ECU, PCM, or other device- The term `Modified ECU, PCM or other device’ means an electronic device intended to alter the output of an internal combustion engine..
`(41) Nitrous Oxide System- The term `Nitrous Oxide System' means the system including tank, injection nozzles, foggers, plates, solenoids, or any other parts intended for introducing nitrous oxide into the intake air stream of an internal combustion engine.
`(42) Spoiler- The term ‘spoiler' means a wing, airfoil, deflector, plate, baffle, projection or other device intended to alter airflow over the bodywork.
`(43) Graphic, decal, sticker, or artwork- The term `graphic, sticker, decal, or artwork' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to cause recognition that the vehicle may be a racing vehicle such as sponsorship decals, product advertisements, and custom artwork or paint schemes to increase visibility.
SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any vehicle the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.
Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any vehicle that--
`(A) is manually started by a crank;
`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(C) is an antique auto.'.
SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED HIGH-POWERED VEHICLES.
Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a high-powered vehicle to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--
`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the vehicle shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or
`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).
`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any high-powered vehicle which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.
SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY FUEL-FEEDING DEVICE.
(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Street-Racing Vehicle With Large Capacity Fuel Feeding Device-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a high-powered vehicle with a large capacity fuel feeding device.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
(b) Certification Requirement-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity fuel feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.
SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL VEHICLE TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.
Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(C) a high-powered vehicle; or
`(D) a large capacity fuel feeding device.'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(C) a high-powered vehicle; or
`(D) a large capacity fuel feeding device.'.
SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY FUEL FEEDING DEVICE.
(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity fuel feeding device.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the High-Powered Vehicle Control and Law Enforcement Act'.
END

If you enjoyed reading about "Would this cause an uproar if introduced?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
November 13, 2008, 04:03 AM
Cars and guns, no matter how cleverly one tries to put it, are not analogous. To suggest such only muddies the issue.

ants
November 13, 2008, 04:28 AM
Let's not miss the big point:

You can't get votes by bashing high powered cars.
You get enough votes to get elected by bashing guns.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 04:51 AM
Evan,your point is well taken,and I Think well made.We all know that more people are killed in cars every year than by accidental shootings.Yet there is no widespread outcry to ban cars.Why?Where's the moral outrage?There isn't any.Why?About half the households in America have guns.This means the other half does not,and one group can demonize the other.Cars on the other hand,almost everybody has,or at least has firsthand knowledge of,and so they don't fear them.We fear the unknown.about half of this generation [if not more I'm generalizing here,not quoting hard stats] grew up in an urban environment without guns,or if there were guns,they were in the hands of muggers,and pointed at them.This fear of the unknown,coupled with and reinforced by the negative connotations of what little they DO know,leads to fear,and an almost instinctive,visceral dislike.

Dookie
November 13, 2008, 04:56 AM
Next your going to be talking about making it illegal to shoot guns from a moving car, on the freeway.

Thats crazy talk.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 05:00 AM
THAT depends on whether there are deer on the freeway,we all know that!

WardenWolf
November 13, 2008, 05:19 AM
I personally think nitrous oxide should be banned from all street-legal vehicles, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for it on a street vehicle, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for racing at the track, and even then it's very dangerous. Any passenger vehicle with such a system installed should be automatically rendered non-street legal.

And yes, I can see all the anti-censorship people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing it to be installed on a street vehicle? It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident, and using it anywhere but the track would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 05:26 AM
ummm,you could ''huff'' it and get the giggles?

WardenWolf
November 13, 2008, 05:29 AM
Oh that's another reason: it could leak out and intoxicate the driver. They just keep stacking up.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 05:31 AM
Seriously,The Wolf is right.Playing ''too fast,too furious'' on the street,with no real training is just asking to get somebody killed.It just happened two weeks ago,up here.''Drag raceing'',I don't know if Nitrous was involved or not,but the driver that killed the 14 year old girl,and injred her mom is looking at a life sentence.

evan price
November 13, 2008, 05:33 AM
The point I'm making is, what is the difference between a high-powered firearm and a high powered car?


A LOT more people die every year in accidents with cars than firearms and YET they want to limit our gun owning rights.

Hey, NOBODY needs a car that goes faster than the speed limit, right? Anything else is irresponsible, right?

How do you think this bill would sit in the press?

In case some folks didn't "get it" this is the HR1022 "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act" rewritten by substituting automotive terms for the gun terms.


What if "they" told you that since you added a fart pipe and a big aluminum wing on your trunk, that it was now a "race car" and banned from the street?
Sounds irrational when you read it this way, doesn't it?

Since when does a trunk spoiler, a set of racing decals and a fancy set of wheels & tires make a car a race car?

Since when does a pistol grip, bayonet lug, and folding stock make a gun an assault weapon?

How is a pistol with an 11-round mag "More Deadlier" than the same pistol with a 10-round mag?

CRITGIT
November 13, 2008, 05:34 AM
You can't get votes by bashing high powered cars.
You get enough votes to get elected by bashing guns.

If that's the case then it more than suggests the voting public can and will do away with our guns. :confused:
Of course the voting public should never be able to subvert the Constitution.:mad:
Except, isn't that what just occurred in CA with Prop 8. :eek:
One group decides something is "not acceptable" and.... "poof" it supersedes the Constitution.:eek: Doncha hate when that happens?!:eek: Ya better!

CRITGIT

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 05:42 AM
We got your analogy,and it was a good one Evan,and a lot of work went into reviseing it the way you did.I hope you post that all over the place.I've used the bathroom analogy before [more people were killed in bathroom slips and fall one year than accidental shootings] but it just doesn't have the same impact.

Geno
November 13, 2008, 06:09 AM
Funny, the analogy was already half-enacted by the insurance companies for surcharge to HP cars. When I purchased my Mustang 5.0, there were no surcharges. Then, about 2 or 3 years later, the insurance companies levied about a 20% to 25% surcharge for the powerful engine.

Your analogy is well-made.

onebigelf
November 13, 2008, 06:59 AM
You left out the argument that cars are used more frequently in crimes than guns are.

John

DoesItMatter
November 13, 2008, 07:07 AM
I believe there are already certain states, I think California is one, where if there are too many street racing incidents with a suped-up car, they confiscate and crush the car while you watch.

LouforAI
November 13, 2008, 07:50 AM
Is this for reals? Got to be kidding

mugsie
November 13, 2008, 07:58 AM
Someboday has waaaayyy too much time on their hands!

subierex
November 13, 2008, 09:20 AM
This can't be serious. This would take over half the cars in America off the road, maybe closer to 3/4.

If not serious, as someone above said, somebody has way too much time on their hands. I have leaves that you could be raking. :neener:

Vonderek
November 13, 2008, 10:00 AM
Although apples-to-oranges it's still an apt analogy that causes people to think...all the more so since driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. When discussing gun control with antis I have used the analogy "Speed figures into almost all vehicular deaths. A car can go 65 mph with a 50-horsepower engine. Therefore there is no legitimate reason or need for a car to have more than 50 horsepower...Any car exceeding that number should be classified as an assault vehicle and banned for the sake of public safety. Therefore your Honda Civic/Lexus/Nissan or whatever should be banned."

hso
November 13, 2008, 10:02 AM
The automobile/firearm analogy has been presented before.

Most folks overlook that automobiles are regulated heavily. They're universally registered unlike guns where only a couple of states require registraion. The operators are licensed unlike only a couple of states that require FOID cards just to purchase. They're restricted as to operation just like most states that require carry permits (except for the couple that don't and the couple that you can't get one). They're restricted completely from come areas just like some guns in some areas. Let's be careful about what analogies we draw since gun prohibitionists, while wrong headed, are not stupid.

expvideo
November 13, 2008, 10:06 AM
21st century Americans believe that driving is a right. Same goes for cell phones. But they don't believe the same about owning and carrying guns.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2008, 10:10 AM
It's not a bad argument but the problem is there is no place in the Constitution that GUARANTEES THE RIGHT to have whatever car you want.

A shame people don't get that.d

benEzra
November 13, 2008, 10:15 AM
I personally think nitrous oxide should be banned from all street-legal vehicles, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for it on a street vehicle, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for racing at the track, and even then it's very dangerous. Any passenger vehicle with such a system installed should be automatically rendered non-street legal.

And yes, I can see all the anti-censorship people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing it to be installed on a street vehicle? It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident, and using it anywhere but the track would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.
Mike, nitrous oxide isn't a fuel; it is pretty much inert, and only breaks down into nitrogen and oxygen at high temperatures, i.e. when you inject it into a cylinder along with extra gasoline; it also sharply cools the intake charge. (It is two parts nitrogen to one part oxygen, BTW.)

Out of curiosity, do you think there are any legitimate uses for a supercharger on a street vehicle? How about a turbocharger? A nitrous oxide setup is just another way to do exactly the same thing as a supercharger or turbocharger, i.e. put more gasoline and oxygen into the cylinder, in order to provide a given power output using a smaller-displacement engine than you would otherwise need. That's why you usually see nitrous on 2-liter imports, not 5+ liter domestic cars.

To those criticizing the analogy, the analogy in the OP is not guns = cars; it is stupid legislation = stupid legislation.

I did something similar at one point on DU:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/24

It is just putting AWB idiocy into a context that is more familiar to most people.

AirForceShooter
November 13, 2008, 10:16 AM
OK
now everybody join the NHRA.
We must defeat this!!!

AFS

Mr White
November 13, 2008, 10:17 AM
Dude, You need to find a hobby or something to occupy your time.

Besides, my cars and truck would be grandfathered in so I 'm not worried. ;)

MAKster
November 13, 2008, 10:29 AM
Everytime there is a well publicized fatality involving street racing or someone driving way over the speed limit in a high performance car, the various web forums devoted to car enthusiasts are full of "the sky is falling" posts about the government enacting new speed limits, banning engines above a certain horsepower, etc.

SDDL-UP
November 13, 2008, 10:38 AM
Mike the Wolf,

Not all "street cars" are driven on the street 100% of the time.

This is the problem in society...

Having nitrous oxide installed on your car is not the problem - irresponsible street racing is the problem. Nitrous oxide does not make you an irresponsible street racer, and not having it does not mean you are a responsible driver.

Gun ownership is not the problem - the problem is criminal activity. Having a gun does not make you a criminal, and not having an gun does not mean you're an upstanding citizen.

expvideo
November 13, 2008, 10:38 AM
I personally think nitrous oxide should be banned from all street-legal vehicles, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for it on a street vehicle, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for racing at the track, and even then it's very dangerous. Any passenger vehicle with such a system installed should be automatically rendered non-street legal.

And yes, I can see all the anti-censorship people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing it to be installed on a street vehicle? It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident, and using it anywhere but the track would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.

I personally think Assault Rifles should be banned from all non-law enforcement and military civilians, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for them in civilian hands, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for law enforcement and military use, and even then it's very dangerous. Any weapon with such a style should be automatically confiscated and destroyed.

And yes, I can see all the anti-communist people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing assault rifles in civilian hands? It effectively turns a neighborhood into a battlefield waiting to happen should these get into the wrong hands, and using it anywhere but the range would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.



Imposing on personal freedoms in the name of safety kind of sucks, huh?

deadin
November 13, 2008, 10:48 AM
Would this cause an uproar if introduced?

I would vote for it because I have no interest in high-powered cars.

AND this is just the problem we face when it comes to guns. There are a large number of people that are ambivilant when it comes to guns and can be swayed by clever anti-gun types into thinking that all guns are dangerous and we don't need them in the first place. The anti's have successfully launched a campaign that has convinced many of the disinterested that they are more likely to be harmed by a gun than saved by a gun. So, they would be better off if there were no guns.

Hawk
November 13, 2008, 10:52 AM
Actually, race cars were heavily regulated by the NRCA of 1934 which imposed a 200.00 tax on cars that could actually go fast. In 1986 the Car Owners Protection Act, while greatly easing the burden of interstate driving, was amended at the last minute by Hughes effectively freezing the high speed car supply pool at 1986 levels.

Don't be misled. The 1994 act does not address race cars. It addresses racing stripes, cosmetic spoilers, dysfunctional mufflers and stickers - most particularly "R" stickers. The cars themselves don't go any faster than any other similar cars - they just look like cars driven in sanctioned races.

They screamed that when the act sunset in 2004 school parking lots would be bathed in 8 cylinder, rear drive, NASCAR racers but these things are still not street legal and cost well into 6 figures for those tenacious few willing to jump through the hoops to own one. Putting stickers and slicks on mom's 4 cylinder front drive does not a race car make.

the poseur vehicle's menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion ..[that] anything that looks like a race car is assumed to be a race car - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these vehicles.

("Garish Vehicles and Accessories in America" [Washington Education Fund to End Street Racing and Aftermarket Part Watch] Sep 2188, p. 26)

RX-178
November 13, 2008, 11:00 AM
It took me a minute to get that one, Hawk. :D

Superlite27
November 13, 2008, 02:09 PM
`(iii) a rear spoiler that stands above the rear bodywork or sheet metal;

Is this the "shoulder thingie that goes up"?

Dookie
November 13, 2008, 02:16 PM
I have turbo and nitrous on my street car, I must be a terrorist.

ArmedBear
November 13, 2008, 02:20 PM
Fast cars are not for driving kids to school. They're good for nothing but killing a lot of people.

CRITGIT
November 13, 2008, 02:27 PM
[QUOTE]I believe there are already certain states, I think California is one, where if there are too many street racing incidents with a suped-up car, they confiscate and crush the car while you watch.[/QUOTE

..and then they make ya eat it!:eek:
I'm goin' say "NO" for a hundred, Alex!

CRITGIT

Dookie
November 13, 2008, 02:28 PM
Cali does do that, they also crush the car if you have stolen parts on it.

Carlos Cabeza
November 13, 2008, 02:32 PM
Very well written legislation. The OP didn't leave out anything. I'll bet that will closely resemble the "common sense gun laws" that our new King Hussein will be pushing.

Also, some of you guys need to go back to DU !:cuss:

Ron-Bon
November 13, 2008, 02:43 PM
Cigarettes kill more people than guns and no one has outlawed them yet.

Sinixstar
November 13, 2008, 02:47 PM
Seriously,The Wolf is right.Playing ''too fast,too furious'' on the street,with no real training is just asking to get somebody killed.It just happened two weeks ago,up here.''Drag raceing'',I don't know if Nitrous was involved or not,but the driver that killed the 14 year old girl,and injred her mom is looking at a life sentence.

But how is that different from playing Rambo on the street, no real training, gets in a messy situation - takes a couple shots in self-defense and kills a few innocent bystanders - say a 14yo girl and her mom....

Again, devil's advocate and all...

(It is two parts nitrogen to one part oxygen, BTW.)

it's "N02" which would signify 1 nitrogen atom, 2 oxygen atoms per molecule. Hate to nitpick but..

Dravur
November 13, 2008, 02:50 PM
Of course the voting public should never be able to subvert the Constitution.
Except, isn't that what just occurred in CA with Prop 8.
One group decides something is "not acceptable" and.... "poof" it supersedes the Constitution. Doncha hate when that happens?! Ya better!

Critgit... if you can point to the Amendment in the constitution that mentions Gay Marriage, would be appreciated.

Oh, you weren't aware that it isnt in there? aww, so sorry.

Sinixstar
November 13, 2008, 02:52 PM
I believe there are already certain states, I think California is one, where if there are too many street racing incidents with a suped-up car, they confiscate and crush the car while you watch.

..and then they make ya eat it!
I'm goin' say "NO" for a hundred, Alex!

CRITGIT



That is correct - they will in fact crush your car.
It's not so much if you get caught racing, it's that when you get caught racing, they go through your car with a fine tooth comb. If they find a single part from a stolen car - say bye bye. Apparently, that's rather common. Common enough that they crush a good deal of cars from what I understand.

Sinixstar
November 13, 2008, 02:53 PM
Critgit... if you can point to the Amendment in the constitution that mentions Gay Marriage, would be appreciated.

Oh, you weren't aware that it isnt in there? aww, so sorry.


You know - when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, some argued against it. Some said "some short-sighted person might come along some day, and think that these are the ONLY rights a person has..."

What in the world would make them think that?

MT GUNNY
November 13, 2008, 02:54 PM
ExpVideo:

Lets assume you have two hunters one is old and wise. the other is young and inexperienced.

The wise old man gives the young hunter a bolt action rifle, the wise one takes a AR25 (rem ar 308.).

They take after the woods to find the elusive "Tirty Point Buck". after hours of walking they spot him about 150 yards away. The wise one tells the young one to shoot,
BANG.. the young inexperienced lad hits the buck. but it was a bad gut shot. Knowing this could happen the wise one jumps into action rotates the safety lever to SEMI AUTO and takes aim at the now running Buck moving further and further away.

BANG.BANG.BANG..........THWOP. thank god that animal does not have to suffer.

Now the young one has learned he has to Practice and the wise one has found another use for a SEMI AUTO Rifle.

Any one else have a story to tell about the Numerous uses of a SEMI AUTO!
Pack of Wolves attack!
America Gets Invaded buy rouge nation!
Farmer Joe has a Coyote problem.
Johny sportsman Winn's the M1 challenge at Camp Perry!

ArmedBear
November 13, 2008, 02:55 PM
Proposition 8 is an amendment to the state constitution.

Like it or not, it's not subverting anything, unless you think that all constitutional amendments subvert the constitution.

If you ask me, a simple majority is too low a threshold for an amendment. However, nothing was "subverted."

cat9x
November 13, 2008, 02:56 PM
good analogy

Carlos Cabeza
November 13, 2008, 02:56 PM
You can buy a bike that will do 200mph right off the shelf. Only need to be 16 to ride it on the street. Lots of kids are killed every year on these things.:what: We need "common sense motorcycle laws" :rolleyes:

FREEDOM IS DANGEROUS !

We don't need more laws, we need more common sense..........................

Sinixstar
November 13, 2008, 02:57 PM
Cigarettes kill more people than guns and no one has outlawed them yet.

Actually - in certain places, yes they have.
I don't just mean in bars or public buildings - but there are entire towns where Smoking is 100% prohibited. Marina Del Rey if i'm not mistaken is one of them.

expvideo
November 13, 2008, 03:25 PM
MT GUNNY,
I was making a point about how the quoted post sacrifices personal liberties for safety, and how those same arguements are made by the anti-gun lobby. I am fully aware of the usefulness of semi-automatic weapons. I thought my post was clear enough in its intent, but I guess it wasn't.

MT GUNNY
November 13, 2008, 04:14 PM
I went back and reread it, your right I see what you were trying to do, Sorry! that said its a good story for future arguments.

DeathByCactus
November 13, 2008, 04:20 PM
I don't see the point in limiting the use of technology. It inhibits humanity imo.

expvideo
November 13, 2008, 04:32 PM
I went back and reread it, your right I see what you were trying to do, Sorry! that said its a good story for future arguments.
Agreed. A very good point, even if my arguement was sarcastic.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 04:32 PM
Actually we in California had already voted down gay marriage once,and the Ninth Circus Court OVERTURNED our vote,and THAT'S what PO'd us off enough to put it to a vote again.I mention this just to clear up the obvious misunderstandings some have of this issue,I return you now to the actual discussion....guns.

benEzra
November 13, 2008, 09:43 PM
(It is two parts nitrogen to one part oxygen, BTW.)
it's "N02" which would signify 1 nitrogen atom, 2 oxygen atoms per molecule. Hate to nitpick but..
NO2 is a nitrate ion. Nitrous oxide is N2O.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide

catfish101
November 13, 2008, 09:56 PM
They forgot those evil black cars. :)

Racing is already illegal in most places. Another waist of paper just like the AWB.

Sinixstar
November 13, 2008, 10:06 PM
NO2 is a nitrate ion. Nitrous oxide is N2O.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide


Figures, I nit pick and call somebody out - and i'm the one who's wrong. :D

dunlop
November 13, 2008, 10:07 PM
my car says it can go 180mph.. but i only point it in a safe direction and never pull the trigger

gvnwst
November 13, 2008, 10:35 PM
Fast cars are not for driving kids to school. They're good for nothing but killing a lot of people.


Um..... Right. I have a high powered car. Cars and guns for me. I also know many people who have "high powered" cars, and they are completly legal. They drive like one should, and race on RACETRACKS on the weekend. Nothing wrong with that.



BTW, banning turbos would be VERY bad, as almost all desiel cars/trucks use turbos. To make the engine actuallyt work efficiantly.

jakk280rem
November 13, 2008, 11:14 PM
i certainly wouldn't mind. my car has none of those features.

catfish101
November 13, 2008, 11:54 PM
If any anybody says they wouldn't mind some restrictions on cars have no room to talk about people that say they don't mind baning weapons because they don't have them or baning a specific type of weapon because of the same reason. You can't use the 2nd as an argument either to attempt to make the two issues different. People rights are their rights. This no different then the AWB.

Dookie
November 14, 2008, 02:32 AM
NO2 is a nitrate ion. Nitrous oxide is N2O.DUDE, it's spelled NOS and pronounced nosssssssss :)

jakemccoy
November 14, 2008, 03:20 AM
That's a good analogy, but only pro-gun gun owners will understand it or read it.

(Yes, there are anti-rights gun owners out there.)

Grey_Mana
November 14, 2008, 08:45 AM
Be careful about comparing cars and guns. There are plenty of officials who would like to:

Require you to have a learners permit for 3 months before you can get a license.

Require you to apply for a license to own firearms, renewable every 5 years, with a written test, practical test, and eye test.

Require you to have insurance for each gun, with a huge extra fee to cover uninsured shooters.

Require you to have each gun, holster, & magazine inspected every two years at a gas station, and pay a tax.

Require you to have emissions testing every two years at a state facility (depending on which state you're in).
----

You'll show up at your favorite range, and find the government has put up a speed limit of 15 bullets per hour.

MachIVshooter
November 14, 2008, 09:31 AM
I personally think nitrous oxide should be banned from all street-legal vehicles, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for it on a street vehicle, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for racing at the track, and even then it's very dangerous. Any passenger vehicle with such a system installed should be automatically rendered non-street legal.

And yes, I can see all the anti-censorship people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing it to be installed on a street vehicle? It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident, and using it anywhere but the track would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.

I do hope such comments are tongue-in-cheek. On that note, if it is serious, I will point out one sentence in the second paragraph: It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident. N2O is not flammable. No more dangerous than compressed CO2.

Also, it is already illegal to use nitrous on the street. The system can be present, but not in operation. Juice it on a public road, you can be charged with wreckless driving, exhibition of speed, etc.

To the original post, dude, you really need a hobby. lol. Seriously, though, you did a good job drawing parallells, but unfortunately, many people feel the same way about high performance automobiles as they do firearms and would love to see both restricted or banned.

madcratebuilder
November 14, 2008, 09:49 AM
I personally think nitrous oxide should be banned from all street-legal vehicles, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for it on a street vehicle, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for racing at the track, and even then it's very dangerous. Any passenger vehicle with such a system installed should be automatically rendered non-street legal.

And yes, I can see all the anti-censorship people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing it to be installed on a street vehicle? It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident, and using it anywhere but the track would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.

From my cold , dead hands! Don't mess with my guns OR my cars. Another miss guided attempt at legislating good sense.

expvideo
November 14, 2008, 09:54 AM
i certainly wouldn't mind. my car has none of those features.
You don't think that once they pass a ban on high powered cars that they won't come after your economy car, or as they'll call it, your "high-occupancy death trap"? Statistically your family car kills more people every year than high powered street racing cars.

10-41Trooper
November 14, 2008, 10:24 AM
I don't think you can put the two issues together, guns and cars. They are two totally separate issues and one shouldn't talk about subject a to justify something in subject b. It makes no sense.

Superlite27
November 14, 2008, 12:02 PM
........hmmmmmm. I realize this is a parody, but I will choose to completely ignore the OP's intent (and brilliant substitution)to highlight the stupidity of the AWB by comparing it to another object owned by millions of Americans and focus on it as literally as possible.

I like it.

Ray62406
November 14, 2008, 12:23 PM
Trying to use the nitrous analogy is the same as the antis are using for guns. Why do you need nitrous on a street car? Its only purpose is for racing = why do you need an ar? Its only purpose is for assaults and war? Neither argument is valid in my books....

Caeser2001
November 14, 2008, 01:30 PM
thanks for stealing my analogy I use with the anti's :what: although I usually keep it simple.

murder is as illegal as street racing but nobody tries to ban any type of car.

skeet king
November 14, 2008, 09:18 PM
For all of you that say nitrus has no legitimite use, your guns have no legitimate use either. You can go to the stor and buy food, we have police, and the military if it comes to war. But WE WANT THEM ANYWAYS
the government should stop treading on the people and fix the freakin ecomony already

jakk280rem
November 15, 2008, 03:53 AM
You don't think that once they pass a ban on high powered cars that they won't come after your economy car, or as they'll call it, your "high-occupancy death trap"? Statistically your family car kills more people every year than high powered street racing cars.

expvideo, take a deep breath. relax. may i recomend that you have your humor detector recertified by the state health inspector?

jakk280rem
November 15, 2008, 03:58 AM
your guns have no legitimate use

you mean our guns, right? or did you mean that your guns are the only ones that have a legitimate use ?

7.62X25mm
November 15, 2008, 05:27 AM
Lest we forget:

There is NO Constitutional provision to keep and bear motor vehicles.

Want2Be
November 15, 2008, 03:48 PM
I can't see that getting into effect. They outlawed just about half the cars on the road. C'mon, an F-250 apparently is a street racing threat? :confused: I don't know about you guys, but I'm not going to try and go street racing in a 6000lb, 3/4 ton pickup truck. Plus, alot of auto makers are turning to forced induction cars to make enough power, and meet EPA standards on emissions and fuel economy.

And if it does happen, I'm screwed. 650+hp Chevelle, Cobra Kit car, worked Camaro, and (apparently its a street racing threat) a Dodge Ram pick up:rolleyes:

GeezerwithGuns
November 16, 2008, 10:51 AM
Why don't we simply ban street racing? Wait a minute.:what: It's already illegal - just like other forms of crime.

TeamPrecisionIT
November 16, 2008, 11:04 AM
Is it me or does the word "ban" just sound so oppressive and Hitler-esque?

Damian

evan price
November 19, 2008, 04:17 AM
OK- for all of the humor impaired people who thought this was real, it was a PARODY. Good catch on the rear spoiler to the "shoulder thing that goes up", that was my intent.

There is of course no such bill as HR 10-200 (10-200 is radio slang for having to go and relieve your bowels).

But read on the surface, does this fictitious bill make any more or less sense than HR1022 does?

I know that certain things are arguably silly (like the ban on all forced induction, when nearly every Diesel engine used for a truck has a turbo). I also know that things are banned that aren't even made anymore (like DeTomaso Panteras). There are also loopholes big enough to drive a truck through, like interchassis compatibility that makes one version of the car illegal, but not another (JUST LIKE the AWB!)



We all know racing stickers and a spoiler do not make a race car.

We should also know that a heat shield and a pistol grip do not make an assault weapon.


(Hmm.. I wonder if someone is going to spread this around the 'net as a "real" bill? Might make Snopes!)

smullen
November 19, 2008, 04:58 AM
I fell for it.... Freaked me out as I'm fairly into the custom car/truck sceene...

I have a somewhat modified 2000 S-10 Blazer that I used to enter into Car/Truck shows every weekend; till I got married and got back into guns...

benEzra
November 19, 2008, 07:49 PM
I also know that things are banned that aren't even made anymore (like DeTomaso Panteras).
Just like current AWB proposals all "ban" the manufacture of the Intratec TEC-9. Intratec has been out of business for years, and TEC-9 production ceased years ago (in large part because of its reputation as an overpriced jam-o-matic).

If you enjoyed reading about "Would this cause an uproar if introduced?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!