Vietnam Vets/Legacy Vets MC raises backwoods bash from the ashes June 12/13

IF you have not had the opportunity to party at the barn or pay your respects at the monument to downed freedom fighters, sharing a drink with the ashes spread at it's base below the old oak, accompanied by the bell that the late Biker Billy built to insure all could hear when respects were paid, well then.....it's time you did.

Our thanks to Papa John and the Red and Black for insuring that traditions of value live on!Add to Technorati Favorites

Are cameras new guns? Another step closer to toalitarianism

Thanks to Mike Greenwald at GoldIron and Biker Rogue for this one:

Are Cameras the New Guns?

n response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

 and 

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

And so like this is new??? Go here for the rest of the story.

So I guess this like means we have the right to ask them to take the dash cams out of there cars as they arrest us?  Oh God no, in fact, I'm thinking every arrest should be taped.  Protects us, protects the cops.  So If a cop doesn't have a camera I will be glad to use  mine!Add to Technorati Favorites

Myrtle Beach Helmet law ruled invalid-but Mrytle Beach still sucks

From Bruce Arnold @ 
http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/

By Lorena Anderson
The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News
Posted: Tuesday, Jun. 08, 2010

The South Carolina Supreme Court today unanimously ruled Myrtle Beach's motorcycle helmet law is invalid because it is superseded by state law.

But also, the court said it found the city impliedly repealed the law itself when it repealed its own administrative court ordinance after the court's chief justices opined that was unconstitutional.

The decision was posted moments ago on the court's website.

The court ruled that all the ordinances -- 2008-61-67 -- were affected by the repeal of the administrative court hearing, but since 61 and 65, the rules about parking trailers on city streets and partying in parking lots, were made into misdemeanors, those are not invalidated.

2008-62, 63, 64 and 66, however, appear to be invalid along with the helmet law, said city attorney Tom Ellenburg.

He said the helmet law's repeal takes effect immediately, and he will issue an order that the municipal court dismiss all pending helmet tickets, that all records be expunged for those who have received tickets and paid fines, and that all fines paid be returned to the people who paid them.

Myrtle Beach passed the helmet law in 2008 as part of a package of ordinances designed to gain control over the May motorcycle rallies, which had drawn about 500,000 people to the area in peak years.

The helmet law has been by far the most controversial ordinance the city passed, and generated lawsuits by people who said the law cannot stand because it supersedes state law.

The state law says people younger than 21 must wear helmets, but has no such requirement for people older than 21.

The city's goal was to push the rallies outside city limits after years of listening to residents complain about noise, trash and lewd behavior on city streets.

Last year, the rallies attendance was far below peak years, though rally organizers have acknowledged that attendance was slowly declining anyway.

In its ruling, the court invalidates the city's helmet law, and said there is a need to statewide uniformity in the rules on helmets and eyewear across the state.

"Local authorities might enact ordinances imposing additional and even conflicting equipment requirements. Such burdens would unduly limit a citizen's freedom of movement throughout the state," the court wrote.

The Myrtle Beach City Council is philosophical about the loss.

"It's not going to change much," Mayor John Rhodes said. "We've already made it clear we don't support rallies and won't support rallies. We're very pleased that we had very few accidents and no deaths within the city this year during the rallies, and our residents were able to sleep and teachers were able to teach.

"And the bikers who did stay in the city and patronize our businesses respected our laws, our residents and our business community," he said. "That's all we've ever asked."

Councilman Phil Render said the city's primary responsibility is to protect residents and visitors.

"I take comfort in the fact that we had no motorcycle fatalities in Myrtle Beach in the last two years while our ordinance was in place," he said.

Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/06/08/1486298/myrtle-beach-helmet-law-is-ruled.html

I was trying to remember if we have said, "Myrtle Beach Sucks" before . So did a quick site search and lo and behold yes we have, a few times actually:

Myrtle Beach SUCKS
Myrtle Beach Resorts To Bold Lies About Rally Cancellation
Myrtle Beach officially tells Bikers, Well we tried to tell you ...
Have we said Mrytle Beach SUCKS-Boycot it or........
Myrtle Beach is cutting their own throat with totalitarian ordinances
Bruces take on the Mrytle Beach protest ride
A Biker wStand up for Freedom in Mrytle Beach! Feb 28hines in the Opinion section of Mrytle Beach Online and ...
Apparently Mrytle Beach has decided it does want your money if you ...
NAACP files lawsuit for discrimatory practices during Black Bike ...
Apparently Mrytle Beach doesn't like BIkers period
 Mrytle Beach BIkers now denied BBQ and in Brooksville underwear ...
 Mrytle Beach South Carolina still sucks and so does the judge
 South Carolina ABATE speaks out, I guess

 Well yeah, maybe a few times. But then you can search and find a few more pages of links.  The sad thing is this law did not stand a snowballs chance in hell in court and in our humble opinion the city knew it.  They accomplished their mission at a high cost to the taxpayers, e.g. Lets let the Bikers know what we really think of them!Add to Technorati Favorites