judge upholds ticket on stock evo wing

[mb]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: supafly
Well, if the judge says the wing is illegal, that kinda makes it an illegally equipped car don't ya think?

Not that I think it should be illegal...

A little county judge is superceded by federal regulations. Presumably, any new car for sale and for use on public roads has to be certified by the US government. Somehow, I don't think this judge has more authority than the federal government.

Perhaps if I said this:

Well, if the entire court system were to say that the wing is illegal, then that would kinda make it an illegally equipped car don't ya think?

Not that I think it should be illegal...

You all wouldn't be so bitchy. Stop nit-picking every damn word on the forum...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: supafly
Well, if the judge says the wing is illegal, that kinda makes it an illegally equipped car don't ya think?

Not that I think it should be illegal...

A little county judge is superceded by federal regulations. Presumably, any new car for sale and for use on public roads has to be certified by the US government. Somehow, I don't think this judge has more authority than the federal government.

that doesn't mean it passes more stringent state regulations, or state regulations when there is no regulation on the federal level.

again, there is probably a statute on the books outlawing these things in that state. just because it is on sale there does not mean it is legal.

 

[spidey07]

again, there is probably a statute on the books outlawing these things in that state. just because it is on sale there does not mean it is legal.

What are you smoking again?

So its fine to sell illegal products?

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: spidey07

again, there is probably a statute on the books outlawing these things in that state. just because it is on sale there does not mean it is legal.

What are you smoking again?

So its fine to sell illegal products?

Yeah. With something like a car I'm sure it has to be approved for sale in a particular state.

 

[slick230]

I thought states couldn't make a law or regulation forbidding something that the federal government allows? For example, I have aheadlight modulator on my motorcycle. When I got it, it came with a photocopy of a federal regulation that states headlight modulators are legal for use on motorcycles. the reason this was included was because people who had purchased the unit previously had been hassled by clueless cops and judges who were trying to say the modulators were illegal in that state. If that were to ever happen to me, I would pull out my handy dandy copy of the federal regulation stating I'm in full compliance with the law, and I would be on my way.

Now, as has been brought up before in this thread, how can a state or local municipality say something is illegal when federal regulations state otherwise. If states now have the ability to supercede federal law, the why hasn't Alabama gone back in to segregation days?

 

[Ornery]

" If states now have the ability to supercede federal law..."

WTF, CA has smog laws that are more strict than Federal requirements, so why not?

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: Ornery
" If states now have the ability to supercede federal law..."

WTF, CA has smog laws that are more strict than Federal requirements, so why not?

States can have stricter laws but not softer ones I suppose.

 

[slick230]

Originally posted by: Ornery
" If states now have the ability to supercede federal law..."

WTF, CA has smog laws that are more strict than Federal requirements, so why not?

I don't know, man. The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

Actually, radar detectors are not legal in all states, such as Virginia. They're legal for sale, but not legal for use.

But something like a spoiler or wing on a car? That's just stupid.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I didn't even know it was illegal to block you rear window. Isn't that what side mirrors are for?

yeah who knows, if the judge can get this to stick, the implications for all kind of commercial vehicles (semis, delivery trucks, etc) would be enormous. But then I guess this judge thinks he knows better than the department of transportation and stuff.

No, commercial vehicles have multiple mirrors designed to give vision to the center rear while being mounted on the side of the vehicle. The side mirrors on a typical passenger car, however, are designed to give vision ON THE SIDES of the car, not to the rear. The sidewiew mirrors SHOULD NOT overlap with the center-mount rearview mirror. If they do overlap, they are adjusted improperly. Period.

ZV

 

[mb]

I'm sure there are no laws anywhere that says one is allowed to block their rear window on a passenger vehicle. There are laws, however, saying that you cannot block the view from your rear window on your passenger vehicle. Where it says that, I don't know, but I do know when I was younger and took my car to be inspected, they had to remove a very small sticker on the rear window to pass it because it was not allowed.

Why it is, I do not know, and I think things like small stickers and spoilers should be OK.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: slick230
I thought states couldn't make a law or regulation forbidding something that the federal government allows? For example, I have aheadlight modulator on my motorcycle. When I got it, it came with a photocopy of a federal regulation that states headlight modulators are legal for use on motorcycles. the reason this was included was because people who had purchased the unit previously had been hassled by clueless cops and judges who were trying to say the modulators were illegal in that state. If that were to ever happen to me, I would pull out my handy dandy copy of the federal regulation stating I'm in full compliance with the law, and I would be on my way.

Now, as has been brought up before in this thread, how can a state or local municipality say something is illegal when federal regulations state otherwise. If states now have the ability to supercede federal law, the why hasn't Alabama gone back in to segregation days?

States have always had that ability.

It just means you won't be prosecuted federally.

Likewise, states can do things like make marijuana legal, but that doesen't mean you won't be prosecuted federally.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I didn't even know it was illegal to block you rear window. Isn't that what side mirrors are for?

yeah who knows, if the judge can get this to stick, the implications for all kind of commercial vehicles (semis, delivery trucks, etc) would be enormous. But then I guess this judge thinks he knows better than the department of transportation and stuff.

No, commercial vehicles have multiple mirrors designed to give vision to the center rear while being mounted on the side of the vehicle. The side mirrors on a typical passenger car, however, are designed to give vision ON THE SIDES of the car, not to the rear. The sidewiew mirrors SHOULD NOT overlap with the center-mount rearview mirror. If they do overlap, they are adjusted improperly. Period.

ZV

Sorry but you can't bend light rays around the back of a truck. There will always be a blind spot immediately behind the vehicle. That's still a pretty big obstruction of vision.

 

[spidey07]

Passenger vehicles have different regulations than commercial.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: spidey07

again, there is probably a statute on the books outlawing these things in that state. just because it is on sale there does not mean it is legal.

What are you smoking again?

So its fine to sell illegal products?

Yeah. With something like a car I'm sure it has to be approved for sale in a particular state.

no, not at all. in the state of texas driver's manual that i got with driver's ed when i was 16 it put specifications in for various things, and said that some things are not legal as they come from the factory. it also said that the buyer is responsible for modifying things to make them legal. the example given was the giant tow mirrors hanging off every F250 in the state, which stick out further than the legally allowed limit from the body of the truck. unfortunately every ebadass out here thinks he knows what the law is, and are usually surprised when they actually find out

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: spidey07

again, there is probably a statute on the books outlawing these things in that state. just because it is on sale there does not mean it is legal.

What are you smoking again?

So its fine to sell illegal products?

Yeah. With something like a car I'm sure it has to be approved for sale in a particular state.

no, not at all. in the state of texas driver's manual that i got with driver's ed when i was 16 it put specifications in for various things, and said that some things are not legal as they come from the factory. it also said that the buyer is responsible for modifying things to make them legal. the example given was the giant tow mirrors hanging off every F250 in the state, which stick out further than the legally allowed limit from the body of the truck.

Good thing I don't live in Texas?

 

[nsafreak]

To all posters in this thread that have hinted that state law can override federal law you guys need to stop smoking the crack. I don't like wings either but in this case if the Lancer Evo with the wing was certified as legal for sale in the US by the Department of Transportation then that overrides ALL state laws and it CAN NOT be overriden. Please read the supremacy clause in the United States Consitution:

Article. VI. [ Annotations ]

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Also read the annotation on priority of national claims over state claims:

Priority of National Claims Over State Claims .--Anticipating his argument in McCulloch v. Maryland, 13 Chief Justice Marshall in 1805 upheld an act of 1792 asserting for the United States a priority of its claims over those of the States against a debtor in bankruptcy. 14 Consistent therewith, federal enactments providing that taxes due to the United States by an insolvent shall have priority in payment over taxes due by him to a State also have been sustained. 15 Similarly, the Federal Government was held entitled to prevail over a citizen enjoying a preference under state law as creditor of an enemy alien bank in the process of liquidation by state authorities. 16 A federal law providing that when a veteran dies in a federal hospital without a will or heirs his personal property shall vest in the United States as trustee for the General Post Fund was held to operate automatically without prior agreement of the veteran with the United States for such disposition and to take precedence over a state claim founded on its escheat law. 17

This is all located on findlaw here

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: SampSon
I don't believe that person, or their post.

Sounds like a 17yr old kid who got a speeding ticket.

after reading the thread i agree.

oh, and i especially liked the one thug who said if it was him he'd kill the judge. wow, that will help in court!

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I didn't even know it was illegal to block you rear window. Isn't that what side mirrors are for?

yeah who knows, if the judge can get this to stick, the implications for all kind of commercial vehicles (semis, delivery trucks, etc) would be enormous. But then I guess this judge thinks he knows better than the department of transportation and stuff.

No, commercial vehicles have multiple mirrors designed to give vision to the center rear while being mounted on the side of the vehicle. The side mirrors on a typical passenger car, however, are designed to give vision ON THE SIDES of the car, not to the rear. The sidewiew mirrors SHOULD NOT overlap with the center-mount rearview mirror. If they do overlap, they are adjusted improperly. Period.

ZV

Sorry but you can't bend light rays around the back of a truck. There will always be a blind spot immediately behind the vehicle. That's still a pretty big obstruction of vision.

Either get the necessary "faster than a sloth" reflexes needed to outbrake a big-rig, or don't fvcking tailgate transports. 😛

That being said, nothing beats drafting a double-trailer to give you a few extra MPG and a lot less visibility to oncoming police cars.

- M4H

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: SampSon

I read that thread, and the "original thread", just because he posted that does not mean it's reality.

I cannot find the scan of the ticket that was claimed to exist in thoes posts. I cannot believe this person hired a lawyer and then did not have him on the courthouse floor while he was in trial. I cannot believe a single word this poster has to say.

Ever get tired of being a TOTAL ASS?

do you?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nsafreak
<snip the ravings of an eknowitall>

explain california emissions please

 

[nsafreak]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nsafreak
<snip the ravings of an eknowitall>

explain california emissions please

Ok, Federal emissions regulations set a standard that states can not go below. It states in the emission laws themselves that states can have stricter guidelines than the proposed federal guidelines. However when it comes the Department of Tranpsortation deeming that a car is suitable for sale in the United States there are NO SUCH PROVISIONS. If you want to I can post the regulations, laws, etc. behind this as well. Or I can call a friend of mine that is a lawyer in New York and have him post on the board.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nsafreak

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nsafreak
<snip the ravings of an eknowitall>

explain california emissions please

Ok, Federal emissions regulations set a standard that states can not go below. It states in the emission laws themselves that states can have stricter guidelines than the proposed federal guidelines. However when it comes the Department of Tranpsortation deeming that a car is suitable for sale in the United States there are NO SUCH PROVISIONS. If you want to I can post the regulations, laws, etc. behind this as well. Or I can call a friend of mine that is a lawyer in New York and have him post on the board.

please do so.

 

[NutBucket]

Uhm, El Fenix, Texas smog laws are tougher then federal standards as well (at least the testing).

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Amused
The kid is going about this all wrong. He needs to first file a lawsuit against Mitsubishi for selling him an illegally equiped car, and then contact all the news orgs.

Of course he will not win against mits, but the attention will get him waht he wants.

Seeing that many commercial trucks don't have rear windows at all, on what basis are you claiming that the evo is an illegally equipped car?

Okay. Commercial trucks are NOT cars. Doesn't anyone realize that there are different sets of rules for different classes of vehicles?!

 

[DrPizza]

Also, name a car that has trouble with road traction at normal highway speeds? WTF do you want to increase downward force, which in turn increases the rolling friction, which decreases gas mileage?