Conference napalm::musclecars

    Howdy:
    
    	Here in Maine the law already states no more then 2 unregistered
    vehicles on a property. I have 4 and was told by the towm to clean 
    them up or be fined. I move two of the vehicles about 30 feet to a
    small piece of land owned by myself and another. Seperate property,
    so there was nothing they could do about it. Anyway it is gonna get 
    worse.. So if you have that project car you want to restore you might
    want to think about running it on Steam...:-)
    
    Rich

    I think it was Hot Rod, or Popular Hot Rodding that recently said in a
    blurb that Massachusetts had that legislation proposed already.  Time
    to write the state reps!
    Matt

    I recently read that N.H. is proposing statewide emissions standards
    that are as strict as California. There are a couple other states,
    Mass, Conn that are considering the same. As far as the N.H. proposal
    is concerned they are shooting for a 94-95 target date (EPA mandated)
    and it will affect all cars '68 and newer. I currently live in an area
    already affected by N.H.'s selective emissions campaign, which doesn't
    affect my 71 Monte Carlo. When the new law passes (EPA will force it by
    threatening to hold back Fed highway funds) then I guess I'll have to
    bite the bullet and make it emissions legal (changing the cam will
    accomplish that). Luckily my 67 Firebird will be exempt.
    
    Tough times are ahead for musclecar enthusists.
    
    Chris

    
    Is there an established lobbying group for carbuffs?  The NRA
    has an enormous amount of political clout, and I'm sure there
    are more carbuffs out there than gunbuffs.  Perhaps it's time for
    us to organize......
    
    Tom
    

    The NMCOA (National Musclecar Club of America) is about the biggest I 
    know of. They always have adds in the major rags, with blurbs on
    impending legislation and how they're working to stop it.. 

    I have just started such a organization here in Washington State. It is
    called "Washington Car Club Council" and is an effort to gather support
    from the local car clubs. We have similar legislation pending here and
    want to be heard with as loud a voice as possible. WE MUST ORGANIZE TO
    SAVE OUR HOBBY!!!! <flame off>
    
    Please join and support any organization that will defend the
    automotive hobby!
    
    Don Berry

    
    I essentially agree, though I think we must organize to defend our
    right to RESPONSIBLY enjoy the hobby.  Unfortunately there's a lot of
    boneheads out there that consider themselves carbuffs, and they have
    the potential to damage the credibility of the responsible carbuffs.
    You know who they are:
    
    1. The brainless squids who smoke the tires pulling out of every cruise
       event.
    2. The idiots who bolt a Holley Dominator onto their 307 Chevy and
       punch a Montana sized hole in the ozone layer.
    3. The kids who drive like maniacs and in the process kill themselves
       and others.
    4. The disreputable vendors who mis-represent cars and parts.
    5. The "Do-it-yourselfers" who insist on dumping waste fluids into the
       ground water
    6. Etc. Etc.
    
    So, as you can see, we must go after those who "break the rules" lest
    we be placed in the same category.  Because, as you know, perceptions
    have a nasty way of becoming reality if left unchallenged.....
    
    Tom  

    
    I guess New England is going to adopt California clean air standards
    by 1995.  Can anyone provide details of the new clean air requirements?
    
    
    Tom

    Tuesday, a number of states (New Hampshire and Mass included) decided
    to adopt the California emissions standards, no effectivity date given.
    These standards are stricter than the federal ones. There was a brief
    article about it in last nights paper. There is also an article on the
    new EPA standards and the California ones in this months Popular Hot
    Rodding. It's interesting reading and from the information given it
    will effect quite a few of us.
    
    It was inevitable,
    Chris

    I feel sorry for you guys that ripped off the EGR systems and air pumps
    and tossed them in the trash can. :-(
    
    Harry
    

    
    Hey Harry,
    
    I resemble that remark.... 8^)   actually 8^(
    
    Tom
    

    
    
    Tom, I know where you can buy a factory original system for your car.
    	 But it will cost ya :-). 
    
    					- A.J.
    
    	actually, I think the repro stuff is getting cheaper, so it might
        not be that bad. The retro active part to these laws s*ck.

      Anybody know what model years are effected by these new laws?
    
    Rich

    All '62 and newer vehicles are affected in CA. They MUST have all of
    the emissions control equipment that they left the factory with, and it
    must be functioning.
    
    Harry
    

    More impending legislation:
    
    There is currently a bill that would give a manufacturer CAFE credits 
    for pre 80 cars taken in trade if the engine and chassis is destroyed.
    If the manufacturer didn't want to destroyed the car it could be resold
    but they wouldn't get the CAFE credit. I'll get the bill number and the
    wording for those who would like to write to your rep. (I know I will)
    
    The EPA is proposing a total ban on the sale of automotive paints,
    primers and thinners to the general public. So, under this proposal,
    unless you own (or know somebody who does) a body shop, the do it 
    yourselfers would be unable to repair or refinish a car.    
    
    
    Chris
    

    
    I feel it is time to mobilize to protect our rights to enjoy the
    hobby.  Are there any people out there who would care to join me
    in some type of lobbying effort?
    
    Some ideas might be:
    
    1. Creating an organization (perhaps along NRA lines)
    2. Creating some type of petition (circulate at club meets, cruise
       nights, Car shows, etc.) to demonstrate to legislators how many
       of their constituents are avid carbuffs.
    3. Doing some research to try and prove that older cars are not the
       pollution culprits they are being made out to be.  (My car gets
       driven a few hundred miles a year, maximum.  How is this making an
       appreciable environmental impact?  I'd bet most carbuffs drive their
       prizes in a similar fashion - I'd bet woodstoves do more damage to
       environment than Musclecars!
    
    It's becoming clear that the Goverment is moving to curtail our rights - 
    probably to satisfy the current "protecting the environment is soooo cool"
    attitude (FAD) being professed by our Politically Correct citizens.  When 
    these people have all but forgotten the environment and have moved on to the
    next fashionable social topic, we will be left holding the bag.
    
    Time to get moving!
    
    Tom 
                                                         

Basically this is what Senate Bill SB2237 states:

(taken from Musclecars of the 60's/70's Jan/Feb 92 issue)

  Senate Bill SB2237 is a piece of legislation introduced by Sen. William
Roth of Delaware that provides federal credits in the Corporate Average
Fuel Ecomony (CAFE) for every pre-1980 motor vehicle that is removed from
the road via trade-in on a new car through a franchised dealer. The car
must be destroyed (crushed, parted out, etc.) and proof that the engine
block and chassis has been permanently removed from service must be 
provided to the federal government. This means that the VIN and/or motor
can NEVER be registered again, not even under the guise of a street rod or
restored antique. 

 The bill goes on to stipulate that the chassis and engine must be destroyed,
not just placed in salvage. It doesn't, however, specifically preclude
someone from stripping pars from the vehicle prior to it's "recycling" other
than the engine and chassis. To qualify, a vehicle must be in service for
one full year prior to the date it was traded for a new vehicle..

The biggest problem looming ahead has to do with the final intent of the
legislation. The real fear is that the concept will spread, serving as
"enabling legislation" after which states and localitites can model their
own laws and codes. And there's the lingering prospect that such legislation
could become mandatory. In other words, every time a pre-1980 car is sold
or traded, it must be scrapped, It sounds absurd, but nothing is beyond the
capabilities of our legislators.

To air your opinion contact you should contact your representative or senator,
because without your speaking out against this is could well become law...


Sen. William Roth
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510  phone # (205) 224-3121


N.H. Senators:    Senator Bob Smith           Senator Warren Rudman
                  Dirksen Bldg.               Hart Senate Office Bldg
                  Suite 332                   Washington DC 20510
                  Washington DC 20510


Mass Senators:    Senator Edward Kennedy      Senator John Kerry
                  431 Russell Building        362 Russel Building
                  Washington DC 20510         Washington DC 20510
    

    It's official, NH has revised it's emissions testing program for all
    1968 and newer cars and light trucks. They also have expanded the
    testing areas to include all of Merrimack, Hillsborough, Rockingham and
    Stafford counties. The federal govenment has mandated that it be in
    place by 1994. NH is planning to begin implementation next year, no
    specific date given.

      RE .17  
    This bill seems like it was spawned off the idea that Unocal in
    Orange County, Ca. had a couple of years ago.  They were paying
    people money to turn in their old cars to be scrapped.  It was a
    very successful experiment, and some decnet cars and a lot of good
    parts got destroyed.
      The National Muscle Car Assoc. is very active in fighting the type
    of legislation you talk about in here, and their newsletter usually
    has something about all the legislative bs that is going on around
    the country.  There are a lot of bills out there that could change 
    our hobby almost overnight if they were to pass.
    
    Rich

    More news on the New Hampshire emissions proposals:
    
    1) The state is proposing regional emissions testing facilities instead
       of the current method which has garages perform the test. They say
       this is because they don't feel that a reduction of 24% could be
       achieved with the current method. That would mean you would have to
       get your vehicle inspected at one place and have emissions at
       another.
    2) Up the dollar figure for getting a vehicle to pass emissions if it
       fails to $450 before an emission waiver can be requested. 
    3) Tie registration to emissions. If your car doesn't pass, no
       registration.
    
    These are only proposals and have not yet been approved.

    <<                 <<< Note 78.13 by RANGER::BONAZZOLI >>>
    <<                             -< Question >-

    <<  Anybody know what model years are effected by these new laws?
    
    In California, anything newer than 1965 must be smogged to original
    standards and be checked every two years at the time of registration at
    renewal time.  Anything older must be smogged to original standards 
    if sold to non-family.  The previous owner is responsible for the cost of
    getting it "smog legal".
               

    Get ready, because N.H. is trying to pass an emissions law which will
    affect vehicles 1968 and newer. It's already been through the House
    and approved and is currently sitting in House Ways and Means.
    
    Bill as passed by the House: Affects the 4 southernmost counties
    (anything south of Concord) All vehicles 68 and newer will be required
    to be tested every 2 years. Testing to be done by state sanctioned 
    testing stations. A car that fails CANNOT be retested at the station
    that failed it. First time waiver will cost $125. Each subsequent
    waiver will cost $450..
    
    Now all of that is bad enough, but wait there's more. The President of
    the local Pontiac club went to the House Ways and Means committee 
    meeting yesterday. They(gov't) want to change the bill. They are
    propsosing that testing to be done every year, the first waiver will
    cost $125 and each subsequent waiver ...$1500!!!!!!. Seems they want to
    make a profit at this.
    
    In speaking to our reps the Pontiac club president found out that NO
    car clubs or auto enthusists had even spoken or protested about this
    bill. Right now we're contacting all area car clubs to rally against
    this bill. So contact your local rep and voice your opinion against
    this bill, because once it passes (in any form) you and I are stuck
    with it.
    
    Chris
    
    

Will they test according to the federal standards for 1968 and later?

Assuming that's the case, how would one argue effectively against it?

Bruce

    I just got off the phone with the Pontiac chapter president. Here's some 
    more information.
    
    - The bill as introduced does NOT include any standards. Of the reps
      who introduced the bill over half have NOT seen the federal mandates
      and did not have a copy in their offices. It has taken him over 20
      phone calls to find anyone who had a copy of the federal mandate.
    
    - The bill specifies a 2 speed dyno test system but does not detail
      what this test will consist of. 
    
    - The bill says that the state will contract out the emissions testing
      and that 15 stations will be spread out within the affected counties.
      The catch here is that a testing station can in no way be related to
      any auto repairs. 
    
    Emissions testing in itself is not what's bothering me. It's the
    vagueness and open endness of the bill. Scary part is that the House
    has already approved it. 
    
    
     Looks like I'll be on the phone to all my reps this evening..
    
    Chris

This is part of the New-England-wide proposal to adopt California standards
and test standards for the future. Part of the deal is that pretty much the
entire California set of laws, standards and procedures would become
operational here in the northeast.

My understanding is that past autos would only need to pass federal emission
standards for the year of manufacture, but all autos sold from some operational
date in the future would need to pass the more strict California standards.

FYI, I believe that the State of Maine has upended (or at least delayed) this
entire apple cart, on the grounds that climactic differences (which lead to
different gasoline blending needs and different operating conditions, thus
changing actual emission counts) render California standards non-applicable to
New England. Perhaps you could research this a bit, as it would seem to be
powerful ammunition, indeed.

As to the vagueness of the law, I believe that that's so because the California
standards are already written, and are intended to apply.

Bruce

PS - FWIW, I personally believe all cars should adhere to the emissions
standards applicable to the year of manufacture, for whatever state they're
built for, although I admit that very little would be served by making a
California car built in 1968, currently residing in New Hampshire, pass
California standards. It's OK with me to have *future* cars sold in New
England pass California standards, though.

Chris, although I mean no flames here, I believe your initial note more than
your follow up, protesting the idea of emissions testing and it's possible cost
to the owners of "classic" autos. Although I'm not unmindful of the potential
financial implications for those who have ripped off "all that emissions junk",
or bought a vehicle who's previous owner had done that, the fact is that we're
at a point, emissions-wise, where the occasional pig on the road puts out more
harmful emissions than *100* or so legal vehicles, AND WE'VE STILL GOT DIRTY
AIR, partially because we have a bunch more cars on the road. I find the whole
idea of central emissions testing, prohibited from repairing the cars they test,
to be very appealing. I also like the idea of that University guy's infrared
curbside sniffer that can identify the bad guys when they drive by.

So, why did I give you advice on how to fight this? Primarily because all
viewpoints need to be heard from, and I personally would really like to have
someone educate me on why earlier vehicles should *not* be subject to emissions
testing, assuming that there really is some good reason that I just haven't
thought of in my ignorance of the subject.

While we're at it, can someone educate me on why it's a bad idea to offer
special incentives to folks of old iron as trade bait to new iron, or to pay
good money for something to feed through a crusher? The obvious answer is that
more "classics" would disappear from our streets, but I fail to see any real
problem with that after trying my absolute best to think the matter through,
from both a casual observer and hobbyist standpoint.

If someone undertakes either effort, please use small words and speak as if to
a child, since I believe I have missed something that must be pretty obvious to
an aficionado.

    Bruce,

      I agree with what you have to say. Just speak to Tom Fisher about other
    parts of the world with no emissions testing and that still use leaded fuel
    and it would be hard to disagree that emissions reduction is necessary.

      I realize that emissions testing is a fact of life and that it will only 
    get tougher as time goes on. My gripes are more around the way the gov't is
    going about it. Giving emission credits to corporations who crush cars is
    joke since these same corporations are allowed to keep dumping tons of 
    emissions into the atmosphere. Want to dump some more, crush some more 
    cars. The N.H. bill with no standard referenced is another example. Choose
    the standard ,put it in the bill and then people know what to expect. 
    Don't leave it open ended. 

     Why the gov't doesn't adopt (or at least test) a program like the infrared 
    curbside sniffer to get the gross polluters off the road is beyond
    me. Isn't it something like 10% of the vehicles are 90% of the problem?
    Hasn't it proven itself or didn't some politicians pockets get lined 
    deep enough. 

    Chris

Chris, I was wrong about the State of Maine having knocked this California
thing back on its heels. It's NEW YORK that has done this, and the Maine
chapter of the National Auto Dealers Association is trying to do exactly
the same thing, with the New York court ruling as a precedent.

Sorry for the bum feed.

Re your last:
I can't argue about government ineptitude. Of course, it's not restricted
to emissions regulations :-).

On the other hand, I can't believe the whole emissions quagmire isn't a fair
bit more complex than how the media and other casual sources portray it. We
all know that smokestack pollutants are a major, and possibly *the* major
source of acid rain pollutants in the northeast. Forcing the switch to less
polluting fuels, add stack scrubbers, etc., tends to make plant managers and
other folks in power get crazy, because they feel they may very well have to
close down something that could be marginal to begin with, and/or move the
operation elsewhere - possibly even out of the country. Result: Job loss.

This is one of the reasons that auto pollution bears a bit more than its fair
share of the burden, since job loss around auto regulations is fuzzy, at best,
and possibly nonexistent.. Of course, it's also true that autos really do cause
a lot of pollution, as well, but we're messing about with the margins, as they
say. That's why the search for "new" sources of auto pollution is so tempting.
(I.E. - older cars, more disciplined routine emissionms testing, etc.) Current
cars are around 98% less "dirty" than pre-controlled vehicles, so, even if you
slice the allowed limits *in half*, you're only cutting back another 1% on
the totals.

I personally believe that centralized emissions testing will make a *very*
significant difference in actual auto emissions levels, especially if you
also do spot checks out on the road.

Bruce

    
    We here in Washington State are going through the exact same issues
    around emissions standards. Through a new organization called
    "Washington Car Club Council" (I'm the President), we have been able to
    have significant input to the regulations and rules reguarding
    emissions testing. Working with SEMA, who has considerable clout, we
    have added key componets to the testing rules. 
    
    The most significant impact to enthusiasts will be to 1981 and newer
    cars. These vehicles will now be required to have a visual inspection
    of primary emission componets. In the initial cut of WA state rules
    there was no provisions for non-stock componets and any removal of
    these componets would cause the vehicle to fail the ispection and not
    recieve an emissions cirtification. By working with the Department of
    Ecology (who actualy writes the standards and procedures - not the
    legislature) we have added language that is similar to the California
    Air Resources Board (CARB) rules for non-stock vehicles. These
    exemptions alow for approved componets to be used in place of OEM
    componets and provide for a non-stock vehicle to recieve a emissions
    certification.
    
    It has been a very difficult process and the final cut has not been
    accepted, but we feel we have been successful in letting the DOE know
    that automotive hobbyists are not opposed to clean air or some kid who
    puts a Holley Domonator on his stock 305. We are willing to follow the
    rules, if the rules allow us the freedom to persue our hobby.
    
    Since is sounds like you are just starting the process and we already
    have considerable experence and documentation in this area, we would
    like to help. I would be happy to send any or all corespondence that we
    have on the subject and put you in touch with our expert, Rolf Astrom.
    Since I am going on vacation for 2 weeks starting today, Rolf has
    agreed to accept any calls on the subject. His work number is
    (206)441-8800 and his home phone is (206)483-8725. Please note that we
    are on Pacific Standard Time and are 3 hours ahead of the East Coast.
    Let us know if we can help.
    
    Don Berry
    DTN 545-4539
    

      I keep hearing rumors about new inspection standards that
    Mass is adopting on Jan. 1st.  Supposedly they are very tough,
    and they affect many older cars that used to be exempt.  Does anybody
    know more about this?
    
    Rich

    
    Rich,
    
    Have you heard any details yet. I know that the Fed. EPA is pushing the
    IM/240 test very hard to the states. I have information on that test
    and I can post it here if you like.
    
    DonB
    
    

      All I have heard is that the cost of the inspection is
    going to be $100, and that the rules will be much more strict.
    
    If you could post the info that you have, that would be helpful.
    
    Thanks,
    Rich

    For those in N.H., the I/M240 emissions testing has been delayed until
    at least Sept '95 (was supposed to start Jan 1, 95) since the contract 
    has not been awarded and no centralized stations have been built. There 
    is also legislation being introduced to get the EPA to back down on their 
    stand of test only centralized stations. I was able to get a copy of the 
    rules of I/M 240 in N.H. and could post the details around what the rules 
    per year are if anyone is interested. One of the interesting details is
    that N.H. vehicles with antique plates are NOT required to pass
    emissions. Now that N.H. has a much less stringent antique plate law
    (read: basically no restrictions, except 25 years or older) than was in
    place previously, the musclecar crowd should be happy. Also helps that 
    the plates are only $6. I just have to wait until '96 on  my '71 Monte 
    Carlo, my '67 Firebird being exempt anyway.  
    
    Chris

    On March 16th the New Hampshire house approved HB-607, making the
    federally mandated emissions testing program easier and less costly.
    Changes are:
    1) All 1979 and older vehicles will be exempt from the testing program.
       (Previously is was to go back to 1968)
    2) Vehicles less that 4 years old will not have to be tested.
    3) The maximum amount to be spent on repairs is reduced to $250
    4) Stafford and Merrimack counties dropped from the program.
    5. The testing start is delayed until April 1, 1996
    

    Mass delayed the implementation of the strict CA emmissions
    testing until at least 1996.  This was done as a direct result
    of the complaints about the strict guidelines received from motorists
    in Connecticut and Texas.
    
    Rich

    Yeah, folks were up in arms here in Texas over the new EPA regs. All
    the testing stations are built. The test is done on a chassis dyno
    (rolling road for those folks across the pond) so it won't be performed
    at the corner garage. Last I heard, the testing will start next month.
    
    Personally, I can't wait for it to take effect. I get tired of getting
    stuck in traffic behind some bozo that hasn't had a tune-up in 10 years
    or worse yet is burning almost as much oil as gasoline. Fix 'em or park
    'em. :-)
    
    Harry
    

    re: Note 78.36 by DPDMAI::HARDMAN
    
    > Personally, I can't wait for it to take effect. 
    > 10% of the cars produce 90% of the pollution!
    
    Just as long as your not in that "10%", eh?  Everyone is responsible
    for maintaining their property.   Psssttt... the real polluters
    are industry which has enough cash to avoid getting screwed by
    the state/federal legislature.  Look how they're talking about being
    able to buy/sell the ability to pollute, legally.  So, who do they
    SCREW?  YOU!  Because your "tired of sitting behind some moron who
    can't take car of his car", so you're willing to play the extortion
    game with everyone else in your state.  
    
    Maybe it's time to invoke the 10th Amendment.  Challenge the EPA's
    authority (lack of) in this situation.  Force them to prove 
    jurisdiction... they can't... but there's a catch... doesn't your
    state want IT'S (your) money back for some BS program?  (bribery).
    
    Guess what?  Does your car leak oil, ONE DROP of oil?  With the
    stroke of a pen your state could fine your ass off for illegal
    dumping.  Do you use oil additives or antifreeze?  Do you have the
    proper PERMITS and have you paid the haz-mat handling fee's on that?  
    It can't happen?  Look what your doing with your car battery today.
    If you lie down on the emissions issue today they will keep pushing
    you.  It's called "gradualism".
    
    Scream like hell today.  Personally I take things a step further.
    I have put the government on notice that I own PRIVATE property, not
    taxable PERSONAL property.  I don't get inspected to prove to the
    government my PRIVATE property meets with their approval.  I don't
    engage in commerce, EXCEPT when I race.  If you notice, a requirement
    for racing is a valid drivers license.  It's a contractual kind of
    thing.  That implies that SOMETIMES you DO need a license, and...
    sometimes YOU DON'T.  It's interesting when you read the fine print
    of the law, and when you pull out the supreme law of the land and
    hit government over the head with it.  
    
    Carefull what you wish for,
    
    MadMike

    You think I'm fooling?  Look at people who live in places where
    they aren't allowed to change their own oil, or even wash their
    car for crying out loud.  And some places have the audacity to
    tell you to get rid of some of your unregistered cars?
    
    Hmmm... what's the deal with "registration"?  Dept. of REVENUE?
    Hmmmm... I wonder when they'll start making your register your
    tv and appliances... hmmmmm.... like your freon polluting
    refridgerator.... WHY do cars need to be registered?  DO they HAVE
    to be registered?  (no)  Gradualism.  Stop these bastards before
    the get their foot in the door.
    
    I started re-reading some of this string and I was appauled.  "Hey
    man, I got a 1973 monte so it won't affect me"  (today).  
    My position is "SCREW YOU!  I own a 1973 monte because I gawd dang
    want one, I paid for it, and it's mine.  Get the hell out of my
    yard."
    
    See, if we can't be responsible for our actions, our local/state/fed
    governments will (try to) legislate it for us.   Of course, there
    are lots of fees, fines and permits involved if you submit to them.
    
    MadMike

Ok, I got done re-reading this whole string which was really interesting,
    and somewhat sad.  This note is entered for EDUCATION ONLY, it
    is not solicitation and it's entered without prejudice.  There
    are 2 ways to attack this whole issue (as well as any other issue
    these days).
    
    This starts at your home.  Then it moves to your street, then your
    whole town, county... and then you get 15 million p.o'd Georgians
    giving Atlanta the "salute" and their program, whatever it was just 
    went kaput.
    
In response to a lot of the "what can we do notes, or let's form a
car club and lobby congress" notes... let's use the law to protect
ourselves.

Here is congress's jurisdiction.  The EPA is an entity created by congress,
so they have the same jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is who can do what, and
where they can do it.  You know, the sheriff has to stop at the county
line, but when the federal government wants to grab you the sheriff must
escort them... suttle proof that jurisdiction matters and must be obeyed.

Read the following slowly and carefully.

(Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17)

"     To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such 
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular 
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the 
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the 
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the 
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful 
Buildings; -- And
     To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this 
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or 
Officer thereof."

The above, clearly states that congress (or the EPA) CAN NOT mandate
policy in say the Republic of New Hampshire (live Free or Die - sorta).
In a nutshell, congress can make laws for itself (DC) and it's territory
(now you know why they try so hard to own everything, national parks, 
military reserves, federal wildlife refuges), anything else must be
SPECIFICIALLY AUTHORIZED by the Constitution, otherwise, they COULD
enact something - and the 1st time it was challenged it would probably
be ruled unconstitutional and would become void.  Congress CAN force 
everyone who lives on federal land INSIDE New Hampshire to get tested,
but fortuantly for most of us, we don't live inside of any national parks
or on Military Bases.

So... they must bribe the sovereign STATE to do this for them.

The state COULD then say..

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution; nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to 
the people."  Amendment 10.

Essentially... get lost.  But the catch is money.  Still, we all know
the fed threatens to withhold FEDERAL ROAD MONEY.  We also know why
the federal road system was built.  It is part of our NATIONAL DEFENSE
SYSTEM... right?  (it is) Wow, so, if the fed refuses to maintain THEIR 
property that is dereliction on THEIR part (providing for the common 
defense, which is a duty the federal government is responsible for) and 
the state can sue them to uphold their end of the deal.  Now, imagine 50 
states doing this all at once (jumping Jackboot Janet).  That would be the 
first way to stop it.  Alas, we all know the states are in the sack with 
DC, so you gotta hit them from another (individual) angle.

On an INDIVIDUAL level, here is how you could challenge any government
meddling with YOUR affairs.  Keep in mind, State law CAN NOT VIOLATE
federal law.  Essentially what the state is trying to do would be in
violation of that law, BUT you may have to become a poster child for
this, BUT how many people are there in your state?  After all, who's
running the show?  The bozo's in Atlanta, or "the people", Georgians?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
persons or things to be seized."  Amendment 4

It is unreasonable to assume my property is poorly maintained and I have
to get inspected and pay a fee every once in a while.  I appriciate the
fact you make this palatable for me, but I choose to not participate
thank you.   *IF* i was sitting at a traffic light and was pissing out
vast clouds of smoke, I would agree that you'd have probable cause to
think I'm worthy of a closer look or inspection, but I was not. 
You may NOT inspect my property and you ARE NOT entitled to sieze my
propery (either my car, or my money via a fee).  Have a nice day.  

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous 
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases 
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service 
in time or War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same 
>>OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN 
ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, 
LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE 
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.<<<  Amendment 5.

Nor be deprived of PROPERTY without "due process of law".  I.e. you
want to take my property you must bring me to court and hopefully
get 12 people to agree with you that you have the authority to steal
my money, cars, or whatever else you want (good luck).  Now... what did 
registering your car do?  Nullify your 5th Amendment right to due process? 
Yup. Is getting my property inspected possibly incriminating myself?  yup.
Sounds like we're in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the
United States Constitution folks... are you prepared to meet me in
Federal court and answer my charges against YOU?  See, in this style
of action you SPECIFICALLY NAIL someone.  The bonehead with the little
wand that he sticks in the tailpipe.  We're talking federal prison time
for him if he's unlucky... so watch that "passed" sticker get slapped
on your windshield real quick.  "sorry sir".  The bozo at the inspection
station may not know this, but the commissioner, governor and your
elected help know it.

In 1985 I lived in Connecticut.  I had an emissons problem when my
Z/28 didn't pass.  I raised all sorts of holy hell and got an audience
with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for the state.  THEY called
me up on the phone and said they wanted to meet with me. The commissoner
apologized to me personally and waived my car permanently.  (shesh, we 
need to shut this ^&*%$ guy up.. quick.)  The important thing was "get it 
in writing".  It'll be your only proof you are "exempted" from whatever 
program the state is peddling.  10 years ago, I didn't know the legal
aspects of this, I just knew something wasn't right.  Today I can, will
and do use American law to keep myself and my family secure.  Please
keep this in mind when you hear the Republicans talking about "tort
reform".  In their haste to stop people from sueing McDonalds for
selling hot coffee that can burn your crotch, they will also junk our 
only legal process which can be used to get government off our backs.  
Be skeptical, be vigilant.  Ask your elected help to explain their
actions and hold them accountable.  There's your term limits, VOTE
THEM OUT. 

MadMike   

    Tell us how you really feel Mike!

        Mike,

    	I like what you have to say, and it would be great if it really
    works. However, is it a right, or privilege to drive on public roads??
    If it is a privilege, then it can be taken away, taxed, bla, bla, bla.
    If it is a right, I bet the insurance @$$holes would refuse to insure
    you, because of lack of inspection.

    	Like I said I like what your saying, but I doubt it will work for
    the masses.

    	CB

re: 78.41 by WMOIS::BOUDREAU_C
    
>    	I like what you have to say, and it would be great if it really
>    works. 

They  obviously don't make it easy to live this way.  A real quick
example:  Do you own your car?  Probably not, the bank does.  If it's
paid for do you own it?  Probably not, you only have a CERTIFICATE of
title.  It's the states property.  You get to possess it.  And for the
privilege of possession you get to pay them some money (personal property
tax).  When you sell that property, you have to tell them, right?  Why?
Do you have to tell them you've sold your TV?  It comes down to HOW
you bought the property, that in itself is a whole different topic.
Money is the key. Same deal with your house. Who can afford to purchase
something outright with LAWFUL money these days?  Not me.  Someone
will extend you bills of credit to gather possessions though.

> However, is it a right, or privilege to drive on public roads??
Driving is a privilege, we've all heard that a million times.  Check out 
some legal definitions from something I researched:

TRAVEL - To go from one place to another at a distance; to journey.  Spoken
of a voluntary change of place.  Within the meaning of a Constitutional
right to travel, means migration with intent to settle and abide.
Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass. 450 F.Supp.1356, 1360  Blacks Law Dictionary.

TRAFFIC - Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money,
and the like.  The passing of goods and commodities from one person to
another for an equivalent in goods or money.  Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
(What are you doing in traffic court?)

COMMERCE - The exchange of goods, products, or property of any kind;
the buying, selling, and exchanging of articles...  National Labor Relations
Act.

DRIVER - One EMPLOYED in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon or other
vehicle.  Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

MOTOR VEHICLE - "Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or
other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for
commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers,
passengers and property, or property and cargo.  Title 18 United States 
Code Sec. 31

DRIVERS LICENSE - A certificate or license issued by the state which
authorizes a person to operate a motor vehicle.  Blacks Law Dictionary.

Drivers engaged in commerce on public roads need to abide by the commercial
rules of the road.  You are insurable and have some protection via the
States court system.  However, if the driver breaks any rules, you'll be 
charged with a criminal violation. 

Do you drive or do you travel?  Do you own a Motor Vehicle or an
automobile?  Now you know why big racing rigs have "NOT FOR HIRE" painted
on them.  Interesting.

>    If it is a privilege, then it can be taken away, taxed, bla, bla, bla.

Your right.  Privilege has certain strings attached, such as obeying
rules, ordinances, being insured, etc...

>    If it is a right, I bet the insurance @$$holes would refuse to insure
>    you, because of lack of inspection.

There is no law that says someone has to insure you.  Insurance isn't
a right.  Isn't it interesting that you have the ability to self-insure?
Why is that?  ;^)  I've insured _ME_.

>    	Like I said I like what your saying, but I doubt it will work for
>    the masses.

It works if you work at it.  It helps if you understand WHAT & WHY things
happen even if you still act "like everyone else".  If you ever get
a piece of paper from the state, for say, "speeding", if you accept it
WITHOUT PREJUDICE (signed that way) and then force them to try this in
court before a jury, they'll probably junk this because THEY HAVE MUCH
MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO, SUCH AS PROSECUTE CHILD MOLESTERS, RAPISTS,
MURDERERS... you know, BAD GUYS.  By living this way, you can help 
set the priorities of your state.

Check this out, more stuff I've found:
    
LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of
acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is
ordinarily revocable at the will of the licenser and is not assignable.
Lehman v. Williamson, 35 Colo.App. 372, 533 P. 2d 63, 65.
The permission by competent authority to do an act, which without such
permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not
allowable.  People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612,218 N.W. 2d 2,5

"The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport
his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, 
is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."  Thompson v. Smith. 154 SE 579.

"The Right of the citizens to travel upon the highways and to transport
his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs
radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place
of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or
omnibus.  The former is the usual and ordinary right of the citizen, a
right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary."
Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v. Davis) 85 SE 781.

You also know that holiday roadblocks have been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I don't have the specific ruling offhand, but I can find it if you
wish.  This is really neat stuff IMO.

This stuff works in court.  Not inferior courts, probate and
state superior courts, in fact they usually have no idea what your
doing, they get intimidated and threaten to put you in jail for "knowing
your rights".  So you keep your mouth shut and just smile.  Sooner or
later everything "gets fixed".

One other nifty thing to think about so you know I'm not pulling your
chain.  When you do get a ticket and go to court and plead "not guilty
without prejudice", notice who becomes your accuser.  "The State of
Massachusettes v. you".  Now, you know your entitled to face your
accuser in court.  Face the "State of Mass."  Where is he/she?  Is it
the governor?  Put Weld on the stand, let's go...  is it the cop?  Then
why doesn't the case say "Cop v. you?"  Have the cop personally accuse me
IN WRITTING... DISMISSED!!!!  Call the secretary of state and ask for
a certificate of existance for "The state of XXXXXXXX" and see what you
get (nothing, there isn't one).  I absolutely HATE the oj deal, but notice
how with that, it's "The PEOPLE v. OJ."  The state, on behalf of the
People of California are going after oj because he's allegedly killed
people.  But when us lowlifes go 56 in a 55 zone it's "the state v. you".
Differnet deal, there is no victim in your "crime".
Finally, if your not sure about having the agent put it in writing,
or "he already did when he gave you the ticket", to some extent that's
true.  I, YOU, HE can accuse ANYONE of a crime.  He's done that with the
ticket.  Notice how when you plea to his personal allagation, you need
to go to a different court AND PLEA AGAIN?  WHY?  Because they're trying
to shelter him from you now.  The only way to resolve HIS personal
complaint against you is to plea not guilty and go somewhere else,
or shut up and pay them money.  WHAT A RACKET.

Regards,
MadMike

    If you've read all of .42, this next thing will make sense:
    
    Now you know why when you RUN SOMEONE DOWN in your motor vehicle
    (of course), you don't get charged with murder.  You get a spanking
    for driving on the wrong side of the road, or following to closely
    or whatever, and you greatfully allow the state to bonk you (with 
    what?  $50 fine probably, another joke).  You will still possibly be 
    zapped with a civil suit, but now they need to prove you intentionally 
    wished to cause the damaged party harm.
    
    It all comes down to personal responsibility.  If you drive 100
    mph, that's not smart.  you _could_ hurt someone. when and IF you
    do, you've broken the law.  up until that point, you haven't really
    done anything illegal.  It's not illegal to be stupid. It's illegal
    to infringe upon others rights to life/property, etc... (such as
    slamming into them). 

    1. Any law is a restriction of personal freedom. *ANY* law.
    
    2. We ought to be careful of any remaining personal freedom.
    
    3. We live in a country that tends to allow outlandish behavior because
       we value personal freedom.
    
    4. We ought to individually pick our fights.
    
    In my opinion, laws that tend to protect me from bodily injury or
    health hazards *from other sources* tend to be more supportable than some
    other laws.
    
    Most motor vehicle laws (inspection and traffic laws, etc.) tend to fall
    in that category, in my opinion. Registrations don't, but I understand
    that protective laws might not have teeth without them. I personally
    have a problem with those laws that make me wear seat belts or helmets,
    for instance (even though I use them), because they interfere with my
    personal freedom, and I am not hurting anyone else if I choose not to
    use such devices.
    
    Yes, I know that "common knowledge" is that I statistically become a
    drain on society because my brains partially leak out from an accident,
    and I cost the insurance company money to preserve me in my vegetative
    state, so everyone's premiums go up, but such arguments, in my opinion,
    are without merit. The simple reasoning is: Where do you stop with such
    arguments? At the point where I can't ride a motorcycle? (Death rate 2.2
    times the auto rate.) At the point where I can't drive a car? (Death rate
    presumably greater than any public transportation.)
    
    The more complicated argument is: Sooner or later it is statistically
    likely that I will become a drain on society, regardless of when I die.
    It simply doesn't matter if I am beltless in the accident, that I smoke
    and die of lung cancer in my 50s or 60s, or if I live to be 100. In all
    those cases, I will be a "drain" on society, whether it be health
    insurance premiums, medicaid, medicare, social security, or whatever.
    
    So, as I said, it's important to measure every law against the
    unavoidable reduction in personal freedom that follows.
    
    The really sticky part is where you have a situation in which one
    individual's rights are pitted directly against another's.
    
    Mike's fight (Z28 against the State of Connecticutt) is just such a
    situation. He asserted his individual rights and won, and I lost my
    right to not breath air that is hazardous to my health. If Mike asserts
    his right to dump used motor oil on his property (because it's *his*),
    then I lose the right to drink non-hazardous water. And so on.
    
    I tell you, this is moderately complex stuff, and I have no wish to
    become a legislator.
    
    Bruce
    
    PS - Mike, running someone down results in an automatic vehicular
    homicide charge (a felony) in the states I've lived in, and becomes
    murder if they prove you had intent, or manslaughter if you're
    negligent (alcohol, speeding, etc.). You go to jail unless you're found
    not at fault.

>    1. Any law is a restriction of personal freedom. *ANY* law.
 
The foundation of our law is "Common Law", in the 7th Amendment.
You will not hurt someone or cause property damage.  If you do, you've
broken the law.  I have no problem with a law that says "you can't
go and hit someone.  If you do, that's called assault.  You can't
go and take someones TV without paying for it.  That's call theft."
Laws that say you can't own a modified 1985 corvette, and you can't smoke
and you can't paint your house pink and you can't park an old coupe in your
front yard are crap.  I do not have the "personal freedom" to infringe
upon YOU.

>    2. We ought to be careful of any remaining personal freedom.
 
"Remaining freedom"???  I've drawn a line in the sand.  I'm all done
giving... give an inch take a mile... no more.  I've gone to great 
lengths to find out how to legally fight back.  I personally believe
in the 4 boxes of freedom.  Soapbox, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box.
I have no problem taking it to the Jury box... I hate like hell to go
to the 4th box.  It's not supposed to happen using our system.  Are
you going to close the barn door after all the horses split?  Not me.
   
>    3. We live in a country that tends to allow outlandish behavior because
>       we value personal freedom.
 
Yes, our founding fathers were radicals, who gave up everything they
had including family, property and in some cases their lives.
You'd be surprised to know that the catholic church (among others) rushed to 
the aid of a church in Florida that like to sacrifice and worship chicken guts.
After all, the Catholics like a little wine with their services.  What's
"outlandish" to you is normal to someone else.  As long as you don't
force me to worship chicken guts, or steal my chickens to have your
services, or leave the guts in my yard... hey man, whatever floats your
boat.   

    
>    Most motor vehicle laws (inspection and traffic laws, etc.) tend to fall
>    in that category, in my opinion. Registrations don't, but I understand

Answer:  Firm Punishment.  If you have an unsafe car or drive with
unsafe habits, you increase the chances of breaking the law (hurting
someone or bending a fender).  If the punishment is severe, you'd hope
that people would think long and hard about driving around in a rat-trap
or weaving in and out of traffic at 80mph.  To enact laws like they do
today violates the principle of prior restraint.  That's when I (the
state/legislative body) know what's good for you (the commoners).  Careful
with that knife - you may cut yer arm off for crying out loud.  Or gun,
or chainsaw, or car, or....  you see... gradualism.  Notice your thing
about seat belts.  I was in new hampshire recently and I saw a sign that
says "New Hampshire SUGGESTS the use of seatbelts.  12 and under must
be buckled"  or something to that effect.  The key word is SUGGESTS.
YOU CAN'T FORCE ME, but you can suggest that driving slow is better than
driving 65 - 70, 80 - 150.  Common Law = Common Sense.  A minor usually
can't speak for himself, so while an adult is free to fling himself
through his windshield, new hampshire would like to prevent youngsters
from becoming hood ornaments due to their parents stupidity.  I have
no problem with that.
    
>    Mike's fight (Z28 against the State of Connecticutt) is just such a
>    situation. He asserted his individual rights and won, and I lost my
>    right to not breath air that is hazardous to my health. If Mike asserts

No, Mike could have paid $450 and had his car waived, and you'd still
be breathing the same polluted via new york industry air.  THAT'S EXTORTION.
In reality, I could have rejetted the carb and probably passed.  This was
for a (at the time) 5 year old car using a 1970's hi-po set up.  The
computer said "this is wrong... you fail".  Bruce, if you moved to California
your vette would be deemed "illegal".  It *LOOKS* wrong.  Who cares if
it blows clean or not, they visually check you first.  That's BS.

>   his right to dump used motor oil on his property (because it's *his*),
>    then I lose the right to drink non-hazardous water. And so on.
 
Ya, this is tough.  You hope that we're adults and I'm responsible and
won't pollute the environment.  Howbout this, If you test your water and
found I polluted it THEN you hold me accountable?  Taken to the other
extreme.  Public Law 95-10101912834722, no person who is not licensed
(via a $25000 hazardous materials fee) may engage in automotive activity
which deals with the following identified chemicals (oil, anti-freeze,
FREON)   <---- oh jezzus... am I still being extreme?
   
>    I tell you, this is moderately complex stuff, and I have no wish to
>    become a legislator.
 
True, and even worse - I HATE POLITICS!!!!
   
>    PS - Mike, running someone down results in an automatic vehicular
>    homicide charge (a felony) in the states I've lived in, and becomes

I'm being funny there.  Witness how many drunks run over people at least
10 times before they "get in trouble".  IMO it's about money.  "So you
got a little lit up and slammed into someone?  That'll be $1500, 40
hours community service and cocktail college for 2 weeks."   BFD howbout
some prison time?  That'll make someone think before driving drunk.

MadMike

    ........about this.
    
    On the one hand, it is a long-standing and well-regarded tradition in
    this country to thumb one's nose at government. Although it is an
    absolute fact that there must be loss of individual freedom as populations
    grow (in *any* society), we *must* guard against any loss that is not
    absolutely necessary. I can't help but feel a certain admiration for you
    in this regard.
    
    On the other hand, of course, you're defending your right to pollute,
    among other things, which I think is a ridiculous and self-defeating
    position. I notice you use the same tired platitudes everyone else uses
    (i.e. - somebody else is guilty of polluting) to help defend your position,
    which, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all. Your other
    arguments, such as my polluted water being directly traced to your
    dumping, are equally without merit, inasmuch as that is generally
    impossible in the real world.
    
    In my mind, your conviction is laudable, and your judgement is
    deplorable.
    
    However, I'll finish this post with another tired platitude: "I disagree
    with nearly everything you say, but will defend your right to say it".
    
    Bruce

    I take issue with my "my attitude towards pollution is deplorable".
    I dont' pollute, I don't condone polluting, and I go out of my
    way to be environmently friendly.
    
    I'm not pointing fingers at who's fault it is, or where the pollution
    comes from.  We know where pollution comes from already.  The fact
    that industry (and now little motorists) can buy and sell the "right" 
    to pollute is bogus to begin with, but what can you do?  I offered
    something to folks who are stuck with it, and your corn gas that's
    screwing up your lawnmowers and cars.  Personally, I packed up my
    family and moved to a rural mountainous area in Northern Georgia.
    Most of the stuff you folks are worried about is a moot point for
    me, now.. today.. but if I become complacent, I'll have to fight
    off this crap tomorrow.  Since I live where I live, you may notice
    I have an extra special reason to not pollute my environment, because
    I have to live here.  No junk yards or heavy metal dumping going on 
    here.  Hell, I even recycle, and it's not even mandatory.
    
    I don't thumb my nose at government.  I demand they obey the law.
    The law to me is the Constitution.  Everything else is subject to
    that.  I don't take to kindly when they break it, bend it and
    ignore it.
    
    I just don't want anyone thinking I condone dumping trash and
    pollution all over the place.  I can sympathize with folks who live
    in cesspools called cities, and folks who have to bend over backwards
    on a daily basis due to government beurocracy. 
    
    One other fine example of what government can and can't do is
    further proven by Chicagos new recycling program.  Business and
    apartment (rental housing) units with 4 or more familys must recycle,
    and the government can mandate that.  Notice how they didn't mandate
    it to INDIVIDUAL HOUSES?  They can't.  Today, they didn't.  But they
    may try in a year or to.  Gradualism... see.  
    
    Regards,
    MadMike_but_dont_confuse_me_with_algor_the_tree_hugger

    OK. I stand corrected - I think.
    
    You *did* use the Z28 as an example, however, and wrote of the New York
    pollution in the same paragraph.
    
    Yeah, we do know where pollution comes from. It comes from us.
    
    I personally think that buying and selling the right to pollute, as you
    put it, is a fairly reasonable approach, given our constitutional
    rights. In a more regulated and docile society, folks would be going to
    jail. 
    
    Pollution is likely to get worse over the next ten to twenty years,
    before we internalize the problem and collectively get after it. The
    catalyst will be water pollution, and some folks are going to die.
    
    Bruce