The Act makes it illegal to sell ATVs and motorcycles to children under 12 because the children might eat the battery terminals, the frame, or tear apart the brakes and lick enough lead to kill or harm them. I’m not sure why kids are incapable of eating Mom’s car battery, which in almost all cases would be easier to get to than a bike or ATV battery, but no one asked me. Lead, while obviously a poor meal, is instrumental as an alloy in the manufacturing of certain materials. Quite simply, it has to be used to construct certain products.

The motorcycle industry, like most industries these days, is hurting. The Act makes it illegal for dealerships to sell the bikes in their showrooms. Lead is used in battery terminals, tire nozzles, and as a trace alloy in frames. Not only does this severely hurt the profitability of a dealership because of lost sales and worthless inventory, but it also hurts the sales of adult ATVs and bikes. If Dad (or Mom) can’t take Billy (or Suzy) with him (or her) on the weekends, then a lot of parents will have to stop riding.

A local dealer told me the Sierra Club was instrumental is passing the Act as a backdoor way of shutting down off road motorized activities. I don’t know if that is correct or just a conspiracy theory, but I have to wonder, especially after the motorcycle industry repeatedly alerted the government to the impact of the law and they made no attempt to cure the preposterous results. The Sierra Club did assist in pushing the Act.

Where does the act of defiance fit in? Malcolm Smith, a legend in off-road motorcycling lore, called the media and told them he was going to sell his youth ATVs and motorcycles in knowing violation of the Federal law. Malcolm faces severe penalties and possible prison time for his bravery.

The protest day was a success, as several ATVs and motorcycles were sold illegally. There was also a show of support by the many off-road racing celebrities who were in attendance. Malcolm carried a baggie of lead fishing weights purchased by his wife that morning to help indicate just how absurd our Nanny State’s nannying has become.

Here is a link to Mr. Smith’s website. He is a true American Hero in my book, and it was a courageous act of defiance. Oh, and thanks again Congress.

On one hand, I can understand why bikers might want to take a “screw ‘em, we just won’t go” approach. I imagine that will cost Myrtle Beach quite a bit of money. Sure, the powers-that-be can increase taxes or figure out some other way to bleed enough money from their constituents to scrape by, but the people who’ll end up having to pay those taxes won’t have as much cash as they used to. There will be plenty of hotel, restaurant, and bar owners who will start hurting. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few tourist shops go under. On top of that, if bikers really stay away, there won’t be any ticket revenue. I think Myrtle Beach will miss the bikers sooner or later. There’s something very satisfying to me about the idea of sticking it to the city that way.

On the other hand, if bikers want to take a stand and really get their message across, an act of large scale civil disobedience is hard to beat. Bikers who just ride through town sans helmet and later pay the ticket might as well not bother. They’d be helping the city. Fighting the ticket is what matters. If hundreds or maybe thousands of bikers get ticketed for not having helmets and every single one of them fights their ticket, what would happen to Myrtle Beach’s court system? The only reason civil traffic infractions generate a lot of profit is because most people roll over. It wouldn’t take that many bikers fighting their tickets to give the Myrtle Beach courts more than they could possibly handle. Most if not all of the bikers will lose, but hearings take time and cost money. The courts could try to cut corners, but I just don’t think it’s possible to cut enough corners to make a government traffic-ticket scam work when everyone’s contesting their infractions.

I think both options are entirely possible, as bikers are ridiculously organized. It may take ten of us an hour to gas up on a poker run, but thousands of us will jump all over a rights issue in a matter of seconds. Try writing something online criticizing bikers and see how long it takes you to get a response. I’ve never seen an online poll go in favor of helmets. On issues with only one pro-biker option, we mobilize quickly. It’s different when the best course of action for bikers isn’t clear. From what I’ve seen, there’s no single voice to be heard about Myrtle Beach. Rights groups have definitely taken up the cause, but they’d be a lot more effective if they acted as one. I hope that happens.

For what it’s worth, my advice to the bikers who are organizing the resistance is to crunch the numbers and base the decision on what’s most realistic. How many tickets would we need to fight to clog the courts? How many bikers can we realistically expect to participate in large scale civil disobedience? How much revenue will Myrtle Beach lose if bikers disappear? How much can Myrtle Beach afford to lose?

Personally, I’m hoping bikers as a group pick civil disobedience. I’ve been meaning to take a ride to South Carolina.

If that ever became law, it would have pretty much everything any frothing-at-the-mouth anti-illegal-immigration-type could ever want. It would make it so that aliens in this country in violation of the federal improper entry statute would be committing criminal trespass simply by virtue of being in Arizona. It wouldn’t matter whether they’re on public or private land. The first time, it would be a misdemeanor, but after that, it would be a class 4 felony. That’s the same level of offense as robbery. If the alien has certain drugs or a weapon, it would be a class 2 felony. That’s the same level of offense as kidnapping. Unlike most crimes in Arizona, the alien wouldn’t be eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served. The statute would also include jail costs and an additional fine. As if that wasn’t enough, part of the proposed legislation would try to give authorities all kinds of unconstitutional powers to enforce it.

I’m not familiar enough with the history of Arizona politics to know if the senate has tried to make that kind of resolution in the past. Hopefully, it will never become a proposition for the people of Arizona to vote into law. My impression is that most Arizonans love making new crimes. The only thing they like better is picking on illegal immigrants. How else do Sheriff Joe and Andrew Thomas manage to keep getting themselves elected? I suspect that law would pass by a landslide. If it does, I shudder to think about the new and creative ways authorities will get around the Constitution to enforce it. Maybe I should start preparing my motions to suppress now.

Arizona’s DUI law says, “[i]t is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state . . . [w]hile there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person’s body.” Impairment doesn’t matter, as it’s a strict liability crime. If a test can detect a drug or its metabolite in your body, you’ll be charged regardless of the quantity. I’m not saying quantity is a good sign of impairment, but a statutory minimum would at least save some unimpaired drivers from being charged. Currently, in Arizona, even you test positive as a result of legally smoking medical marijuana a couple weeks earlier, that won’t help you one bit. There are also plenty of legal drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, that might land you in jail if you’re caught driving after taking them.

But don’t worry, the list of drugs in section 13-3401 isn’t that big. Oh wait, nevermind. The list is huge, and who knows how many metabolites each of those drugs has. Aren’t laws supposed to give us some kind of notice about what is and isn’t illegal? It might not be a bad idea to keep a doctor, pharmacist, or maybe chemist on speed dial to make sure you aren’t breaking the law by driving.

To give you an example of how our DUI drug law might convict an innocent person, here’s a little story. A client works a full shift. His managers and co-workers are with him the whole time, and at no point does he use any kind of illegal substance. He gets in his car to drive home. As he leaves the parking lot, he makes a wide right turn, and an officer pulls him over for breaking a traffic law. After approaching, the officer says he smells marijuana and claims the client has a green tongue. The officer asks the client if he recently smoked marijuana, and the client says “yeah, a few weeks ago.” The police report, of course, will merely note “suspect admitted to smoking marijuana.” The client is arrested, and a subsequent blood test eventually comes back positive, though only slightly over the absolute minimum amount the state’s equipment is capable of detecting.

In most instances, that client will be convicted of DUI drugs. Furthermore, his strict-liability DUI drug conviction will result in a one-year driver’s license suspension, not the 90-day suspension a driver actually impaired by alcohol would have gotten. The client will also have to equip his vehicle with an interlock device that does nothing to detect whether he has one of the numerous forbidden drugs or metabolites in his body.

If Kentucky’s legislature has even the tiniest bit of common sense, it won’t go down the ridiculous path we have.