Defending the rights of American drivers

[toreskha]

This has nothing to do with guns.

I was just reading about the National Motorists Association. They're apparently to the AAA, something like what GOA is to the NRA. I'm going to join the NMA immediately.

If you didn't catch the alphabet soup, they're basically a motorists' rights organization that kicks ass and takes names. According to their issues page, they're against red light cameras, roadblocks, poorly established speed limits, tolls, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, daytime running lights, etc, etc. NMA is against laws that prohibit people from using cell phones while driving. They also encourage everyone to fight every speeding ticket and will pay members' court costs up to $300 if they lose.

I have always used a cell phone while driving, and will continue to, for all time - even if it's declared illegal. Frankly, I consider communication to be a human right and do not feel a need to justify it. I really like the example that they use for anti-cell phone laws...

Most of these pre-emptive laws are put in place for one of two reasons. The first is the belief that by making the innocent and harmless act illegal it will eliminate the possibility that this act will lead to another, actually harmful act. For example, the carrying of a concealed firearm actually harms no one. However, most states and local jurisdictions prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms under the theory that preventing the possession eliminates the possibility that the firearm would be used to cause harm.

The second reason, and the underlying reason for making the harmless use of cell phones illegal by vehicle operators, is ease of enforcement. A blanket prohibition of cell phone use by vehicle drivers is far easier to enforce than are inattentive driving laws. This eliminates the need for exercising thoughtful discretion and reasoned judgment. The issue appears black and white. That the cell phone user was causing no harm and endangering no one does not have to enter the decision making process. The NMA opposes this type of politically expedient enforcement practice. Innocent, harmless behavior, in and of itself, should not be illegal.

[Glockster20]

Sounds like they are trying to change the laws. Currently driving is a privilege and not a right.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by Glockster20

Sounds like they are trying to change the laws. Currently driving is a privilege and not a right.

It certainly is a privilege and not a right, but people who are lawfully excercising that privilege have rights. Ownership of private property is a right, and so is doing what one wants within that property, so long as it does not interfere with the rights or privileges of anyone else.

[Oregon Vet]

Interpret this from their site, please:

Insurance companies should not be permitted to refuse payment of claims because the policy holder violated a traffic law that allegedly caused the loss.

[tattedupboy]

This sounds like a good group.

[S&WM&P40]

Sounds like NH. We have no seat belt laws, No helmet Laws. There are so many good groups out there one will go broke trying to be a member of all of them. AAA,NRA,USCCA,ASDI,This group and the list goes one. On the up side if you can fork over the cash you will never be with out help.

[Sheldon]

but will they fight illegals getting drivers licenses?

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by Sheldon

but will they fight illegals getting drivers licenses?

Let's hope so. Part of defending the rights of American drivers includes fighting to protect them from illegals who may not understand our road signs.