http://www.fastfreds.com/articles/law-not-device.htm

ITS THE LAW, not the Device.
Written by: Jessie McDugald in 1998

Over the past thirty-plus years of our helmet law there has been a lot of
confusion about exactly what we've been working to achieve. Popular slogans
such as "Let those who ride, Decide," and "Freedom of Choice" have been
misleading because they indicate that we haven't had a "choice" or that we
haven't been "deciding" on helmet use, when in fact we've always had the
choice and have never stopped deciding. Like me, many of us in South Carolina
have the tickets to prove that we do decide and we do make choices. The
problem has been the consequences of our choices which, until June 16, 1980,
was a $100 fine or 30 days in jail. The punishment for not wearing a helmet
hasn't changed, its still $100 or 30 days, but the law has changed. We amended
the law so that adults, 21 years of age and older, would no longer be punished
for our choices. To this day each of us, as adults, continue to exercise
our "Freedom of Choice" on helmet use, We Ride, We Decide.

This seems fairly simple to many of us who have been dealing with this issue
for the past 25 or more years, but to many others its been difficult to
understand. "How-in-the-hell did South Carolina earn their Liberty almost 18
years ago?" is a question I've heard more times than I care to count. "Why do
you have a Helmet Law Support rally every year?" is another question I've
heard just as often if not more so. The answer is very simple, we stopped
arguing the device and began arguing the law.

What the heck is the device? It's the hat, the helmet, the brain bucket, the
skid lid. For years we fought on the helmet battlefield with little success.
Much like General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, CSA, whenever our
enemies "picked the ground" we were less than successful. (This would be an
opportune time to discuss military tactics and strategy but I'll save that for
another time.) Even the most cursory glance at our helmet law made it obvious
that the issue of the device is mentioned only in that it should be of a
certain type, and on an approved list. Not one word mentioned how good a
helmet was or how it would save your life, prevent an accident or injury,
reduce the "social burden" or medical cost. NOTHING! Not one word, and yet we
continually found ourselves doing battle over the device because our enemies
wisely fought us in the device arena knowing full well that the law said
nothing about these issues. When we finally awakened to our enemies' strategy
we decided to let them expend their energies on those issues that had nothing
to do with the law, we let them argue the helmet, the device. We decided to
argue the law, and we WON!

I recognize that many of you might find this line of thinking difficult to
comprehend when you've heard all those device arguments over and over again,
both pro and con. So imagine for a moment that you're seated in the audience
of a public hearing arguing to mandate helmet use for all adults. The enemies
of Liberty bring up all the same old arguments about insurance, public burden,
accidents, injuries, and fatalities. That forcing everyone to wear a helmet
will cause the economy to boom and be the answer to every safety question
known to man. It is the one "silver bullet" that mankind has searched for for
millenniums. That this one device, if used by every man, woman, and child,
would bring peace and happiness the world over. (I know, I know, they don't
get that carried away publicly but they might as well.)

Notice that not one word addresses the law, the question of arrest,
incarceration, or fine. Seldom will the enemy venture into the battlefield of
the law because he is woefully unprepared. He won't address why I (or you)
should be arrested, incarcerated, or fined when I don't wear a hat except to
say that I MIGHT get into an accident, and I MIGHT be injured, and I MIGHT
sustain greater injuries if I'm not using the device, and I MIGHT not have
sufficient medical insurance coverage, and I MIGHT cost the taxpayers (funny
how we aren't taxpayers when this argument comes up) more a little money. Our
enemy will argue anything but the law itself. He has chosen the battlefield,
he has picked the ground, and it is the device he wishes to argue. In the past
be went headlong into the fray and were as successful as the Light Brigade in
the Crimea . Try as we might, we could not provide sufficient information to
counter the artillery and infantry charges of our enemies on their chosen
field of battle. We lost once again.

Flashback! Valentine's Day 1980. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Special Laws. Our opponents have launched a vicious attack with various
medical personnel, highway safety "experts," and so much printed data that it
would take several gigabytes to store. As we begin our counter-attack the
legislators wonder how a bunch of dumb-ass bikers, with only leather jackets
and denim (no coats & ties), and a love of Liberty to protect us could
possibly contravene such an overwhelming force aligned against us. But hold,
we refused to fight at Gettysburg and picked Fredericksburg to make our stand.
We switched battlefields, we picked our own ground. We chose to argue the law
and not the device.

As we began we stated that we had no arguments with all the data provided by
our opponents, in fact it was the same data that we used to come to
diametrically different conclusions. We reminded the legislators of the old
saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." We reminded them that our
Highway Department and other opponents had a great deal of practice at
figuring. We pointed out that not one word of testimony from our opponents
addressed the issue we were there to address, the question of arrest,
incarceration, or fine of adults who simply choose not to wear a hat when
operating a motorcycle. We pointed out that on every level, federal, state,
and local, the laws recognized the principle of adult responsibility and in
many instances specified a particular age when these responsibilities were
incurred. On the federal level, age of responsibility is addressed in the
areas of service to country and other areas (president-35, senate-30, house-
25, voting-18, etc.). On the state level (governor-30, senate-25, house-21,
drinking-18 [before the fed blackmail, now 21], consensual sexual intercourse-
14, etc.) this issue was equally addressed. What was it about this one
particular device that made it so important that regardless of age and
experience adults must be mandated under threat of arrest, incarceration, or
fine to use it. Even if we believed that every word spoken by our opponents
were 100% true would that be sufficient warrant to punish adults that simply
didn't want to use this device ALL of the time? We argued the law, we left the
device alone.

Although we didn't convince all of the legislators (some continue to believe
that those adults who voted them in to office need to have these decisions
made for them), in the end are arguments won the battle. And although the war
continues our enemies have yet to put forth even one sound argument for
punishing adults, so they continue to argue the device, and we don't mind at
all. We'll continue to argue the law, not the device.

The reason I'm bringing this up now is because Parkay reminded me there are
many bikers, in and out of South Carolina, either too young to remember almost
two decades ago or new to motorcycling and have little knowledge of the
history of our struggle for Liberty. So for the record: ABATE of South
Carolina has no position on the device, wear it if you will or don't if you
won't. As for the law, we support the amendment added on June 16, 1980 which
no longer punishes adults with arrest, incarceration, or fine when making the
choice of not wearing a helmet. We're adults. We're expected to act like
adults and we're expecting to be treated like adults. Maybe using this
particular device is a good idea, if so then convince us. But don't try to
beat us into submission because it just won't work.

There you have it, a Readers Digest version of our DEVICE versus the LAW
history. If you're still confused then think about it the next time you have a
drink or smoke a cigarette. The law says that if you're under 21 and you have
a drink or under 18 and smoke a cigarette then you can be arrested,
incarcerated, or fined. The device is the alcohol or the cigarette. See if you
can come up with some good arguments as to why you should drink or smoke, then
think about some reasons why you should be arrested if you do either or both.
I'm willing to be that you can't come up with many (or any) sound arguments as
to why you should be arrested, incarcerated, or fined for using these devices.
Should you use them? Probably not, but it isn't my job to be your guardian
angel or big brother. Should you be punished if you do use them? NO! Not in a
million years. Its your prerogative to decide on what devices you should use
or not use. You should only be threatened with punishment when you use these
devices against others. Does not wearing a helmet cause accidents, injuries,
fatalities, insurance cost increases, or enhanced public burden? Nope! Never
has, never will. And to credit a few bits of Styrofoam and fiberglass with
such qualities is ridiculous.

Remember this the next time someone questions you about our law here in South
Carolina ; we have no argument with the device but we do object to a law that
threatens us with arrest, incarceration, or fine when we don't use that
device. After all, its the LAW, not the device, that concerns us.

Dum Spiro, Spero.
************************************************************

Don't let your civil servants ruin your life.
Get involved and lobby your statehouse.

************************************************************