Civil Disobedience While Open Carrying

Okay - you all probably know I LOATHE motorcycle helmet laws. I've done quite a bit of work to repeal that stupid Nevada law. Now I've kicked up the activism by riding my motorcycle wearing ZERO helmet, WHILE open carrying.

Here's my youtube that I produced recently in polygamyville, Utah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wxfq77hi_o

And here's my blogpost about that vid: http://tigerlilsblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/civil-disobedience-while-open-carrying.html

At the risk of "stereotyping" on this forum I'd like to make this comment:

If anyone objects to my civil disobedience while open carrying, may I propose that if Rosa Parks had been open carrying, she would not have been sent to the back of the bus. She would have either been left alone, or been killed.

I don't care to live to be a slave. And I use my 2a to defend my liberties.

TL

p.s. Please don't kick me out until I've had a chance to post my oc-ing at Metro. Very juicy stuff!

I generally like your posts but now you're advocating open carry while knowingly breaking the law. This is not helpful to the open carry movement and is not really appropriate on this site.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

The law may be stupid as hell but it's still the law. Keep working on getting it changed through your legislature.

I support TigerLily's cause, and civil disobedience in general. I practice civil disobedience everyday. My family and I use almost all of our time informing people around us about liberty related issues, such as victim-less "crime" laws. We also take action in the legislative process by communicating with our reps, almost daily.

Disclaimer: I do not speak for all opencarry.org members, I speak for my family and myself.

I really like how the civil servent actually did serve. Keep it up!!!

Cant wait for the metro vid. Please hurry.

Hopefully not to drag this any farther in a none related forum subject direction, this will be my one and only post on the subject. I have ridden motorcycles since the mid 60s, competed in motor cross, desert racing, sand drags, hill climbing, trail ridding, road touring, and city riding. I have had many dessert get-offs and a few road get-offs. No one has to tell me to wear a helmet. I believe ridding without one is in complete disregard of common safety sense.
With that said, so is my very none healthy way if eating. I am glad there is no law that will be broken if I eat a triple bypass hamburger and a boatload of fries cooked in lard from the Hart Attach Grill. Though I would never ride without a helmet, I do believe an adult should have the choice. Law enforcement has plenty of real crimes to stop.
I do agree to blatantly break a law even if deemed an unconstitutional law while trying to get positive results and changes for firearm laws may have the opposite effect. Some antis my use such actions as fuel or example to show gun owners are not interested in following any laws.
Some may disagree, so be it, however; at least we have not lost the legal right that allows us to agree to disagree.

Hoping the right to have does not turn into the need to use.

The Jeffersonian liberal in me wants to say, "Go for it. Damn them and their arrogance for thinking they have authority to dictate to another adult that he must wear a safety helmet."

However, I don't want a moderator busting me, so I won't actually say it because such would be violating Rule 15 by advocating or supporting her.

This is a bit of queer situation. TigerLily is not advocating breaking that law, she's just notifying us that she's doing it. But, none of us can support her or tell her to do it.

For the record in Utah, helmets are optional if the motorcyclist is 18 years or older.

JoeSparky said:

For the record in Utah, helmets are optional if the motorcyclist is 18 years or older.

Click to expand...

And I think this is the right way to handle it. Children should be required, despite their stupid parents. Adults should be free to be *unsafe*, as long as it doesn't affect others.

I use the term "unsafe" in the friendliest possible sense. I may think it's stupid to ride without a helmet, but you're entitled to that, and I will defend your right to do so.

Back to the topic of the thread, while would *hypothetically* support this form of civil disobedience, I am more concerned about the harm it could bring to the Open Carry movement.

"Don't cross the streams, Egon" - Ghostbusters

(I am with Carsontech and Citizen. I'm waving some pom poms in your name, Tigerlily!!!)

I disagree with the idea that one shouldn't open carry while engaging in another activity, like civil disobedience. Should she also restrain herself from exercising her 1st Amendment rights because it might make free speech look bad?

I understand the idea behind not wanting to give any bad press about OC to the anti's, but I also don't believe that we should restrain our activities for fear of the bad press. That, to me, is a measure of their influence over us, and I'm not buying into it.

thebigsd said:

I generally like your posts but now you're advocating open carry while knowingly breaking the law. This is not helpful to the open carry movement and is not really appropriate on this site.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

The law may be stupid as hell but it's still the law. Keep working on getting it changed through your legislature.

Click to expand...

I have to question what the bounds are of Rule 15. I think a fair reading is that it's main context is a prohibition of "illegal acts of any kind" involving firearms (carry, ownership, transfer, use, advocacy).

Advocating, which TigerLily seems to be doing, the violation of helmet laws in NV is kind of removed from the important issues of concern both here and in the pro-gun rights community at large.

TigerLily, IMHO, is showing very poor judgment in riding without a helmet, but that is her choice. Riding without a helmet AND OCing doesn't seem like a great idea either, but I don't see any adverse impact on OC resulting therefrom. The OC is coincidental to and very subordinate to the traffic violation.

That being said, we should ask John or Mike how far they want Rule 15 to apply.

I'm fairly certain they wouldn' want to proscribe civil disobedience that is far enough removed frm OC/CC so as to not be a negative reflection or impact on OC/CC or gun rights in general.

The possible problem is that the presence of a weapon escalates many offenses. You need to know what these are and avoid any chance of "appearing" to cross them (remember, you aren't arrested for what you do, you are arrested for what the cops can CLAIM that you are doing).

Love the discussion. There appears to be quite a bit of propaganda-driven dogma about the use of helmets. Since the members on this forum are basically open-minded to see past the propaganda related to gun rights, I hope this article of mine will open your mind to see through the propaganda related to helmet use and helmet laws.

http://tigerlilsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/will-nevada-see-helmet-choice.html

Thanks for not killing this thread..... yet.

Tigerlil, that was a very informative read, especially the part about medical bills. I would say that is the only thing that has ever given any credibility to helmet laws, and it looks like it's been debunked there. I :am: curious though, are the trauma bills lower with no helmet because most/more non helmet trauma patients (almost said victims, can't be a victim of suicide) arrive DOA? I'm not saying that to start a fight, I am really curious. As far as I am concerned, suicide by pavement should be legal, as long as it is not on my tab.

And what is your (or your movement's) position on minors?

In the anti-helmet-law community, are helmets still generally considered safer, legal wrangling and special cases aside?

I am anti-helmet-law, but pro helmet, just wondering what the consensus of your community is.
Sent from my Windows Phone using Board Express

HankT said:

[/B]
I have to question what the bounds are of Rule 15. I think a fair reading is that it's main context is a prohibition of "illegal acts of any kind" involving firearms (carry, ownership, transfer, use, advocacy).

Click to expand...

Good point.

One hand, we should not advocate unlawful acts.

On the other hand, who do you know that hasn't committed an act of civil disobedience?

Have you ever driven 56 mph in a 55 mph zone? That is civil disobedience.

Apples & organges? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes the point.

As someone else said, "If Rosa Parks hadn't ..."

One could argue the point that because I was open carry when I did not roll my window down "all the way" I was breaking a law while open carry, yet I have never read a law that says you must roll your window completely down when asked.

I do not want to go too deep into the helmet issue, but it is similar to the window problem above. The State of Nevada adopted 49 CFR 571.218 as the helmet standard to enforce. It is regulated by the 49USC Chapter 30103-301123 (relevant parts for Federal safety standards.) the problem is this is a test for vehicle parts manufactures, not end users. This standard becomes moot at the point of sale, and carries no regulation towards the end user. Since the USC 49 301103 says a State can ONLY enforce the test, in 49CFR 571.218, how can one break the law, unless they are a manufacturer as long as they are not wearing anything protective on there head.

Citizen said:

The Jeffersonian liberal in me wants to say, "Go for it. Damn them and their arrogance for thinking they have authority to dictate to another adult that he must wear a safety helmet."

However, I don't want a moderator busting me, so I won't actually say it because such would be violating Rule 15 by advocating or supporting her.

This is a bit of queer situation. TigerLily is not advocating breaking that law, she's just notifying us that she's doing it. But, none of us can support her or tell her to do it.

Click to expand...

I see your point.

There are two basic ways to change unjust laws. One is via the legislative process, which is a hard way to go and often they ignore you. The other is via the courts. In order to get the courts to look at the law, you must have standing. The way to get standing is to break the law, civil disobedience. Where would OC be today but for the efforts of some who challenged local ordinance?

TBG

True true, not even in dispute. My only concern is getting one agenda tangled in the legal wranglings or public opinion of another.

As an example, I wouldn't want the oc movement to get associated with the legalization of marijuana movement. Regardless of how you feel about either issue, I don't think either would benefit from being associated with the other. Its even reasonable to say that there would be more harm than good.
I think there is something to be said for keeping our various pet agendas isolated from one another, for the sake of public perception. if that is hard to see, just pick an agenda you don't agree with, and ask yourself if you want it tearing down the good will we've managed to build in oc.
Sent from my Windows Phone using Board Express

Merlin said:

Tigerlil, that was a very informative read, especially the part about medical bills. I would say that is the only thing that has ever given any credibility to helmet laws, and it looks like it's been debunked there. I :am: curious though, are the trauma bills lower with no helmet because most/more non helmet trauma patients (almost said victims, can't be a victim of suicide) arrive DOA? I'm not saying that to start a fight, I am really curious. As far as I am concerned, suicide by pavement should be legal, as long as it is not on my tab.

And what is your (or your movement's) position on minors?

In the anti-helmet-law community, are helmets still generally considered safer, legal wrangling and special cases aside?

I am anti-helmet-law, but pro helmet, just wondering what the consensus of your community is.
Sent from my Windows Phone using Board Express

Click to expand...

Glad you asked. Reminds me to write an article EXPOSING one, John Johansen, NV DPS agent, who flat out LIED to our senators during Nevada's last legislative session. He said that UMC expenses were about $15,000 more per person that doesn't wear a helmet. And when I contacted him to get his source, he mistakenly sent me "too much." In that data was a conversation between him and one Bob Brown (if I recall the name) - a UNLV medical statistician. Imo, the two conspired to lie to the senators and spin the data to keep Nevada's helmet law. I have proof and am waiting for the perfect timing to expose this chump and report him to the AG (and his boss, Tracy Pearl) for misleading, conspiring, and violating Nevada's lobby laws. In essence, John's data showed that in AZ, a comparably geographic state, the cost of TBI (traumatic Brain injuries) was FAR LESS than that of Nevada's, despite Nevada's helmet law (Arizona has helmet choice.) For John to get his bogus numbers, he used a number of states - including one state called 'OTHER' to sway the stats to the advantage keeping Nevada's helmet law.

The UMC stats guy, Brown, made this statement:

"John, the two graphs are showing the same information. I just reversed the axis information in case one is better to use over the other. Now, the average cost for helmeted over unhelmeted may not be as great as one would think, but that is due to the helmet saving a life and incurring a huge amount of expenses whereas an unhelmeted person in a similar crash would have died on the scene and not occur any medical expense. Also, I do not have data from northern Nevada (Renown trauma center), so this information is for southern Nevada only. Please contact me if you need any clarification or additional information."

As you can see, Brown is SPECULATING. If he had real data to support his thesis, where is it? I asked and he never responded. My guess is that there is no REAL data to support an UNBIASED study. As long as the government controls the stats, We the People are screwed, almost defenseless to counter their agenda-driven numbers.

This data is the tip-of-the-iceberg related to the overreaching corrupt claws inherent in our State to keep We the Nevada People in shackles. (The Sheriffs And Chiefs comes to mind as a perverse entity to keep Nevada's guns "controlled.")

In my view - all helmet laws in every state should be 100% repealed, and if parents want to put a helmet on their kid, it should be their choice.

I rode my 25 year old daughter on the back of my bike in AZ. I was helmetless, she chose to wear a helmet. We rode into a GIGANTIC bee swarm. Bees bounced off my head, so I just had a few dings on my head, but my daughter had bees got caught inside her visor and she was bitten and said she tasted honey. LOL Had that happened to me, I might have lost control of my bike and been another "sad helmet-less" stat.

TigerLily said:

And when I contacted him to get his source, he mistakenly sent me "too much."

Click to expand...

heh, I love it when this happens. I usually get scores of neat info in similar forwards. Innocent mistakes like not knowing what a BCC is are often useful. In a recent email mto me confirming my Cert class registration, the organizer CC'd everyone, so now everyone in the class has each others email address. A simple mistake, but a good example.

Years ago, there was a case of a TechTV correspondent using a photo for a public web page that had been cropped from one that included nudity. She wasn't aware that the metadata of the photo still had the original, uncropped info buried within. (Didn't actually hurt her career though, since the audience was a bunch of salivating nerds.

Thanks for the reply on the rest. I think I disagree with the part about minors, but I am on board with the rest. Down with the helmet-foisting overlords!