CHP gives cliff a smog ticket for his teener Options

[GringoLoco]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

[ConeDodger]

Just to stay somewhat on topic... what would happen if I bought a car that originally sold in a state other than CA, and didn't have their special emissions gear on it, and moved to CA? Even though the vehicle was bone stock, and in perfect condition, would I be required to modify it to meet CA new vehicle standards for that year? Or is that only for brand new vehicles?

I can answer that. I came to California on a military assignment in 1995. I brought a Chevrolet Tahoe and a Toyota Camry and left all of the toy cars in Minnesota. The Camry had been originally purchased in California in 1990 so registering it was no problem. The Tahoe however, had a $400 charge in addition to the normal registration charges for bringing a non-California car into the state. I shook my head and said to the DMV person that it isn't legal. She said, "You're probably right. It is being challenged right now in court." Sure enough, about 5 years later I got a check in the mail for $5XX dollars as a refund plus interest. Seems it is illegal to require vehicles that were manufactured for 49 State to be retrofitted or to charge extra because they are not so equipped.
So the short answer is you only need to have a visual inspection of the VIN stickers unless it is a salvage title. If it is a salvage titled car it has to have a CHP inspection to determine if it was reassembled with stolen parts. Then once it has a CHP inspection it needs a Brake and Light inspection. That is a pain in the ass because all lights need to work. Even the interior light must turn on when the door opens.
I had the Bumblebee CHP inspected. The CHP officer had a hoot driving it and told me so... The BBB didn't have an E-Brake that was operational though. Jim gave me the parts needed but I didn't want to be bothered since I intended to trailer the car to events. As I said, they refused to issue a title in my name claiming I needed to complete the Brake and Light. I had our lawyer at work check the laws on that and she said they could in fact issue a title but not registration. I brought that letter to DMV and they issued title two weeks before the car left for Norway!

[ConeDodger]

My point is, you don't have any more freedom than people in California. The law concerning smog devices is Federal. And so by the way is the law on assault type weapons and silencers... Or are you calling that a spark arrestor? Nice guns by the way..

There are restrictions on firearms, sure, but suppressors are NOT banned at the federal level. I don't remember what states allow them (I know PA is one), but you just have to pay for a tax stamp (I know full auto weapons work that way, I could be mistaken about suppressors). Nevada I'm positive is a Class III state, so you can own full auto AND suppressors (and use them). I can own one legally in my state, but it's illegal to actually mount it on the firearm. Stupid law, I think I should be allowed to mount a suppressor on my H&K USP .45 for home defense, no point in going deaf while defending myself. And you can't POSSIBLY say with a straight face that you are as free in CA as in WA. For instance (and we're not the most free, by far). Can you carry a concealed pistol to protect yourself in public? I can and do (rarely, gets to be in the way sometimes). I can also drive around town with the windshield folded down on my Jeep (yes, legally), drop an LS1 Corvette engine or whatever I want in my 2000 Jeep, so long as the engine is the same year or newer than my Jeep (and I can keep the engine from throwing a fault code). My AK-47 clone, complete with collapsible stock, 30 round magazines, tactical rail, forward grip, and red dot sight would probably get me sent to prison in CA, here, I take it camping (yes, legally). I can also go across town to Federal Way Discount Guns, where they have a shiny new Barrett M82 .50cal on sale for $7999, and walk out with it today after a quick 5 minute NICS phone call. CA politicians (actors) would have you convinced that we'd all kill each other if we were allowed to have much more than a pellet gun, but I'd be willing to compare violent crime stats with CA any day of the week. I've also noticed lately that PB Blaster, WD40, certain materials in my shoes, cereal, and whatever else contain chemicals known ONLY to the state of CA to cause cancer, so I'm much safer up here too. If only it would stop raining now.....

Wow, I just went back and read that.... reeeallly makes me look like a redneck. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) As I was reading this I was thinking "redneck"... Seriously guys, if you don't feel freedom in California - you might in fact be a redneck.

[orange914]

My point is, you don't have any more freedom than people in California. The law concerning smog devices is Federal. And so by the way is the law on assault type weapons and silencers... Or are you calling that a spark arrestor? Nice guns by the way..

There are restrictions on firearms, sure, but suppressors are NOT banned at the federal level. I don't remember what states allow them (I know PA is one), but you just have to pay for a tax stamp (I know full auto weapons work that way, I could be mistaken about suppressors). Nevada I'm positive is a Class III state, so you can own full auto AND suppressors (and use them). I can own one legally in my state, but it's illegal to actually mount it on the firearm. Stupid law, I think I should be allowed to mount a suppressor on my H&K USP .45 for home defense, no point in going deaf while defending myself. And you can't POSSIBLY say with a straight face that you are as free in CA as in WA. For instance (and we're not the most free, by far). Can you carry a concealed pistol to protect yourself in public? I can and do (rarely, gets to be in the way sometimes). I can also drive around town with the windshield folded down on my Jeep (yes, legally), drop an LS1 Corvette engine or whatever I want in my 2000 Jeep, so long as the engine is the same year or newer than my Jeep (and I can keep the engine from throwing a fault code). My AK-47 clone, complete with collapsible stock, 30 round magazines, tactical rail, forward grip, and red dot sight would probably get me sent to prison in CA, here, I take it camping (yes, legally). I can also go across town to Federal Way Discount Guns, where they have a shiny new Barrett M82 .50cal on sale for $7999, and walk out with it today after a quick 5 minute NICS phone call. CA politicians (actors) would have you convinced that we'd all kill each other if we were allowed to have much more than a pellet gun, but I'd be willing to compare violent crime stats with CA any day of the week. I've also noticed lately that PB Blaster, WD40, certain materials in my shoes, cereal, and whatever else contain chemicals known ONLY to the state of CA to cause cancer, so I'm much safer up here too. If only it would stop raining now.....

Wow, I just went back and read that.... reeeallly makes me look like a redneck. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) As I was reading this I was thinking "redneck"... Seriously guys, if you don't feel freedom in California - you might in fact be a redneck.

o.k. i guess i'm a redneck too... i'm transplanted into ca. yes there are alot of good people here, but yes, most californians who have never been out of state dont relize the constitutionally gauranteed freedoms hat they give up every day.

what just happened yesterday with the crazed idiot that killed the 2 year old... many other places the good guy would have been able to place a .45 in the appropiate spot. here they had to call 911 a wait , how many minutes as the child was being brutally killed?

mike
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)

[ConeDodger]

My point is, you don't have any more freedom than people in California. The law concerning smog devices is Federal. And so by the way is the law on assault type weapons and silencers... Or are you calling that a spark arrestor? Nice guns by the way..

There are restrictions on firearms, sure, but suppressors are NOT banned at the federal level. I don't remember what states allow them (I know PA is one), but you just have to pay for a tax stamp (I know full auto weapons work that way, I could be mistaken about suppressors). Nevada I'm positive is a Class III state, so you can own full auto AND suppressors (and use them). I can own one legally in my state, but it's illegal to actually mount it on the firearm. Stupid law, I think I should be allowed to mount a suppressor on my H&K USP .45 for home defense, no point in going deaf while defending myself. And you can't POSSIBLY say with a straight face that you are as free in CA as in WA. For instance (and we're not the most free, by far). Can you carry a concealed pistol to protect yourself in public? I can and do (rarely, gets to be in the way sometimes). I can also drive around town with the windshield folded down on my Jeep (yes, legally), drop an LS1 Corvette engine or whatever I want in my 2000 Jeep, so long as the engine is the same year or newer than my Jeep (and I can keep the engine from throwing a fault code). My AK-47 clone, complete with collapsible stock, 30 round magazines, tactical rail, forward grip, and red dot sight would probably get me sent to prison in CA, here, I take it camping (yes, legally). I can also go across town to Federal Way Discount Guns, where they have a shiny new Barrett M82 .50cal on sale for $7999, and walk out with it today after a quick 5 minute NICS phone call. CA politicians (actors) would have you convinced that we'd all kill each other if we were allowed to have much more than a pellet gun, but I'd be willing to compare violent crime stats with CA any day of the week. I've also noticed lately that PB Blaster, WD40, certain materials in my shoes, cereal, and whatever else contain chemicals known ONLY to the state of CA to cause cancer, so I'm much safer up here too. If only it would stop raining now.....

Wow, I just went back and read that.... reeeallly makes me look like a redneck. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) As I was reading this I was thinking "redneck"... Seriously guys, if you don't feel freedom in California - you might in fact be a redneck.

o.k. i guess i'm a redneck too... i'm transplanted into ca. yes there are alot of good people here, but yes, most californians who have never been out of state dont relize the constitutionally gauranteed freedoms hat they give up every day.

what just happened yesterday with the crazed idiot that killed the 2 year old... many other places the good guy would have been able to place a .45 in the appropiate spot. here they had to call 911 a wait , how many minutes as the child was being brutally killed?

mike
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)

For those of you who don't know what Mike is talking about, yesterday in Central California in an area around a city called Turlock passers-by saw a man beating a toddler. The child was 1-2 years old. They tried to stop him but he pushed them away. They called 911 and a police helicopter landed and when the man continued beating the child the officer shot and killed him...

What happened to that child is indeed unfortunate. I am from Minnesota and the passers-by could not have shot the guy in Minnesota if it had happened there instead of Turlock. Only the child had that right and only if the child had a permit to carry or if he (the child) was on his way to or from his place of business. Even then, the child could only use deadly force if he felt he could not run away. Of course,if the child was inside his own home and was assaulted like that he could have shot the guy there but in Minnesota the passers-by and the child had no more rights than here in California. The States that allow people to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise without a permit to carry are in the minority.

Blaming California for some loss of rights in that regard is uninformed at best. I am not arguing against the right to own a gun. I am simply presenting reality.
If a passer-by had been carrying a gun and shot that guy I would have joined those who hailed him a hero. He would have gone to jail though, and the point is he would have gone to jail in most States. California is not that bad...

[GringoLoco]

For those of you who don't know what Mike is talking about, yesterday in Central California in an area around a city called Turlock passers-by saw a man beating a toddler. The child was 1-2 years old. They tried to stop him but he pushed them away. They called 911 and a police helicopter landed and when the man continued beating the child the officer shot and killed him...

What happened to that child is indeed unfortunate. I am from Minnesota and the passers-by could not have shot the guy in Minnesota if it had happened there instead of Turlock. Only the child had that right and only if the child had a permit to carry or if he (the child) was on his way to or from his place of business. Even then, the child could only use deadly force if he felt he could not run away. Of course,if the child was inside his own home and was assaulted like that he could have shot the guy there but in Minnesota the passers-by and the child had no more rights than here in California. The States that allow people to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise without a permit to carry are in the minority.

Blaming California for some loss of rights in that regard is uninformed at best. I am not arguing against the right to own a gun. I am simply presenting reality.
If a passer-by had been carrying a gun and shot that guy I would have joined those who hailed him a hero. He would have gone to jail though, and the point is he would have gone to jail in most States. California is not that bad...

More and more states are adopting reasonable concealed carry laws. It used to be that the majority of states did not allow any type of concealed carry for the average joe, but now it's the other way around. See:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

and a nice graphic of how concealed carry is expanding:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/right-to-carry-history.gif

In many states now it would have been perfectly legal to shoot the suspect in the above incident. Mine included. My state laws say that you do NOT need to attempt to run away. You can use lethal force against any suspect that is committing a violent felony against yourself or another person and you honestly believe that person's life is in danger. In a situation as blatant as the above one, the only way a person that shot the suspect could be prosecuted is if he either didn't have a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) or he was carrying an illegal pistol (like a full auto sub-machine gun or something).

As for our CPL's, we, along with a large majority of states now, are "shall issue." That means that the state HAS to give us a permit to carry, unless they can find a GOOD reason not to. Felonies, restraining orders, dishonorable discharges, and I can't remember what else are the only kinds of things that could disqualify you. You just go to either the courthouse or your local police department, fill out a simple one page form, get your finger prints taken, pay the $60 total for the license and fingerprinting fees, and in ONE MONTH OR LESS, they are REQUIRED to give you a CPL good for 5 years. Renewals are I think $30 or $35 for another 5 years. You are right hardly any states allow carry without a permit (AK is the only one I know of), but it's a LOT easier to get a permit in a normal state than most Californians realize. I don't even carry very often, usually only when I go to the Tacoma Mall (too many gangbanger wannabes there), or walk around Seattle. The point is that I should be allowed to, and more and more people are starting to realize it, much to the dismay of the CA liberals.

Oh, and I'm also a transplant. I'm originally from CA (Escondido and Sacramento), and always wanted to move back because of the weather. Not anymore.

[ericread]

For those of you who don't know what Mike is talking about, yesterday in Central California in an area around a city called Turlock passers-by saw a man beating a toddler. The child was 1-2 years old. They tried to stop him but he pushed them away. They called 911 and a police helicopter landed and when the man continued beating the child the officer shot and killed him...

What happened to that child is indeed unfortunate. I am from Minnesota and the passers-by could not have shot the guy in Minnesota if it had happened there instead of Turlock. Only the child had that right and only if the child had a permit to carry or if he (the child) was on his way to or from his place of business. Even then, the child could only use deadly force if he felt he could not run away. Of course,if the child was inside his own home and was assaulted like that he could have shot the guy there but in Minnesota the passers-by and the child had no more rights than here in California. The States that allow people to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise without a permit to carry are in the minority.

Blaming California for some loss of rights in that regard is uninformed at best. I am not arguing against the right to own a gun. I am simply presenting reality.
If a passer-by had been carrying a gun and shot that guy I would have joined those who hailed him a hero. He would have gone to jail though, and the point is he would have gone to jail in most States. California is not that bad...

Doen anybody else think that the above remark sounds like an episode of "Family Guy"?

That Stewie just cracks me up! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

Oh, never mind... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Wanna9146]

Blaming California for some loss of rights in that regard is uninformed at best. I am not arguing against the right to own a gun. I am simply presenting reality.
If a passer-by had been carrying a gun and shot that guy I would have joined those who hailed him a hero. He would have gone to jail though, and the point is he would have gone to jail in most States. California is not that bad...

Wrong! Here in FLA (and TX and NM that I know of), we have in our state constitution a paragraph or two called the "Castle Doctrine". We are allowed to shoot without retreat, whether in our homes, cars or just walking down the street. We are allowed to shoot if placed in fear of bodily harm or death. We do not have to be physically attacked, just "in fear of" grievious injury or death. We can even shoot an unarmed person who is whooping our ass, or someone else's ass, if we believe we, or the other whoop-ee is in danger of serious bodily harm or death. And furthermore, here in FLA, WE ARE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL PROSECUTION if the shooting was determined by law enforcement to be "good".

We just had a case where a black man driving a garbage truck was confronted by two rednecks over a traffic altercation. The rednecks got out of their vehicle and attempted to open the door(s) of the garbage truck, screaming at the guy using the "N" word. The garbage truck driver shot them both, killing one. The garbage truck driver walked free without even being placed in handcuffs. The surviving reckneck is in jail for attempted murder (I believe those charges have been reduced, however, since the incident).

I am a free man. If you live in Kal-ee-for-ni-yah, you are not. It's really that simple.

On March 23, 2005, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" unanimously, by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. They know something about this bill.

On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS, a margin of better than four to one.

On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It took effect on October 1, 2005.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

[GringoLoco]

Blaming California for some loss of rights in that regard is uninformed at best. I am not arguing against the right to own a gun. I am simply presenting reality.
If a passer-by had been carrying a gun and shot that guy I would have joined those who hailed him a hero. He would have gone to jail though, and the point is he would have gone to jail in most States. California is not that bad...

Wrong! Here in FLA (and TX and NM that I know of), we have in our state constitution a paragraph or two called the "Castle Doctrine". We are allowed to shoot without retreat, whether in our homes, cars or just walking down the street. We are allowed to shoot if placed in fear of bodily harm or death. We do not have to be physically attacked, just "in fear of" grievious injury or death. We can even shoot an unarmed person who is whooping our ass, or someone else's ass, if we believe we, or the other whoop-ee is in danger of serious bodily harm or death. And furthermore, here in FLA, WE ARE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL PROSECUTION if the shooting was determined by law enforcement to be "good".

I am a free man. If you live in Kal-ee-for-ni-yah, you are not. It's really that simple.

On March 23, 2005, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" unanimously, by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. They know something about this bill.

On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS, a margin of better than four to one.

On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It took effect on October 1, 2005.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

WA has similar laws, I don't know if we actually call it Castle Doctrine or not, but it's very similar. I can shoot an unarmed suspect that I believe is in danger of killing another victim, and have no responsibility to attempt retreat. The only thing I'm not sure of is if we're immune from civil prosecution on a good shoot. Should look that up...

[Wanna9146]

You are right hardly any states allow carry without a permit (AK is the only one I know of), but it's a LOT easier to get a permit in a normal state than most Californians realize.

In my (second) home state(s), NM & FL (I'm originally from California), you can carry concealed in your car without a permit (assuming you are legally able to own a weapon). In NM, you can also carry "open" while walking down the street, just like John Wayne:

(IMG:http://www.4oldguns.com/_borders/JohnWa1.jpg)

Vaya Con Dios! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ar15.gif)

[brer]

"I am a free man. If you live in Kal-ee-for-ni-yah, you are not. It's really that simple."


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Wanna9146]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) squared. When's the last time you shopped for a two-stroke outboard motor in San Diego? Charcoal lighter fluid? Shall I go on?

[ConeDodger]

The "castle doctrine" comes from old English law which is what US laws are based on. It holds that in a mans own castle, wither shall he run and how long shall he stay away when he is intruded upon. A simple translation is that a man has no duty to run away in his own home if he is intruded upon or attacked. The Castle Doctrine as you are describing it is actually called an expanded Castle Doctrine. It expands on the in a man's own castle portion... So that he doesn't have to run in other situations.

I have a gas BBQ and plenty of lawn equipment that is two stroke. I still don't feel imprisoned in the State of California. I guess the really cool thing about living where I live is that I don't feel the need to carry a weapon... Something very liberating about that...

Anyway, this has gotten really far off the topic and is not helpful to the young guy with the CHP problem so I will no longer comment on it...

[Toast]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/OT.gif)

WOOOOOOOOOW!
This thread got WAAAAAAAAY Off Topic!!



Chris,
As a Californian, I would definatly call the station where the ticket was issued and ask to speak to the supervisor of the officer that wrote you the ticket. Just explain to him that you dont understand the charges and you have not been able to find any information about that type of charge. Explain how you feel about the way the ticketing officer was and how he handled the situation and see he (supervisor) has any suggestions on how to fight this ticket.

Been There Done That!

Trust me. I does help. You don't even have to be rude or angry. Just be straightforward with a hit of firmness in your voice.


Good Luck!


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/toast.gif)

[markb]

I loaned Cliff my engine & trans from the red car to take it to the referee. He was supposed to be taking it in today. Hopefully this will have solved his problem. I'm hoping he posts with a positive ending to the story.

[CliffBraun]

Actually, it's quite helpful to me, it's very entertaining, and I can plot my escape from smog laws...

Actually, I am on the verge of having the car legalized, and from my experience with traffic court you're entirely at the mercy of the judge in most of these situations. I feel that I have a good chance of getting a significant reduction in the fine as the purpose of the law has more or less been served in my case without any additional punitive charges.

[Wanna9146]

I guess the really cool thing about living where I live is that I don't feel the need to carry a weapon... Something very liberating about that...

Wow! There is no more violent crime in California? Woo-hoo!...I'm coming back! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

[ConeDodger]

I guess the really cool thing about living where I live is that I don't feel the need to carry a weapon... Something very liberating about that...

Wow! There is no more violent crime in California? Woo-hoo!...I'm coming back! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

No that's alright...

[Wanna9146]

I guess the really cool thing about living where I live is that I don't feel the need to carry a weapon... Something very liberating about that...

Wow! There is no more violent crime in California? Woo-hoo!...I'm coming back! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

No that's alright...

Don't worry...I was kidding. I wouldn't move to Calif. again if you paid me (unless, of course, you solve the gang problem).

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Cap'n Krusty]

Ask your local law enforcement about "SM". No, that's not "Scary mothers". Might as well be, though. We're solving out gang problem: we're sending them elsewhere. You live in "elsewhere". The Cap'n