California Law 'Muffles' Motorcycles in 2013

[paper]

They won't try a bill that gets it all done at once, but rather, they'll chip away at it until it's too hard and/or expensive to get one. Just like they're doing with firearms!

You're preaching to the choir, Brother! I'm also a FFL-03 license holder, as well as a Utah CCW holder who lives on the state line between the two states that don't have CCW..

And while this looks like I'm getting off topic, I'm trying to show what's happened to gun, motorcycle, and many other laws that have been chipped away from us here in the States.. Lawmakers have nothing better to do than make new laws to protect us from ourselves, and since that's their job, they just keep chipping away at all of them..

Since we can't police ourselves, they feel the need to do it for us.. In the end, the only ones who get hurt are those that follow the rules in the first place. I don't run loud exhaust on my motorcycle because the noise offends those around me, and I don't walk down a street shooting at the air because it scares the public. Self imposed moderation is the key, but it doesn't work because law breakers are running loud exhaust or holding up a local gas station with a gun.. In the end, the person that pays the price for both actions are those of us who follow the laws that are already in place.

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

I'm guessing these comments will toss a spark on the gas in this topic..

 

[Juan1]

The old saying is that your right to punch ends at my nose. It is the same with loud pipes; your right to loud pipes ends at my ears. We were given a freedom to use whatever pipes we wanted, but it came with the responsibility of not having a significant number of riders with obnoxiously loud pipes. As a group we failed, and we have this legislation as a result.

Can't say this law bothers me. I also think bikes should be smogged, but this thread isn't about smogging or gun control, it's about loud pipes.