rec.autos.simulators

Let me explain myself, then you will see where I am comming from.
I live in a small town in north eastern PA, 50% of the people here drive
pickups, my back yard, friends backyards, ect... all have old cars, parts,
stuff like that, (OK go ahead and start the Jeff Foxworthy redneck jokes),
like alot of people here my truck is my pride and joy.  A friend and myself
have just about finished the restoration.  Me parking my truck in my driveway,
or in front of my house is a way to show it off, I feal that what a person
drives says alot about a person.  If I went somewhere and some one said I
can't drive and or park my truck there, I would take that as a very prejudice
insult.  It would be like telling a biker that he can't drive his Harley in my
neighborhood, or telling my neighbor that he can't park HIS harley in HIS  
driveway.  Hell, if I made the kind of money that the people who think of
these laws made, I would probably buy my neighdor another bike or truck.
enough ratteling on I guess, hea??

Last I heard there was some kind of ammendment that allowed freedom of
expression.  In my opinion this law is set out to make these residents buy
cars, or telling  a construction worker that workes out of his truck and makes
an honest living that he can't work, and if you want to work you have to live
somewhere else.

My opinion: If you don't like me or anything I do that has no effect on you
           I am not forcing you to be here.  i.e. If you don't like me parking
my mint 1969 C20 in my driveway I am not forcing you to stay here.  

But I guess if you make lots of money and want to live here, you can just make
a "donation" to the city and get what you want.

My final thought:  They are going to pick on an honest law obiding citizen for
owning a pickup, but they arent as worried about them bastards out selling
*** to little kids.  Which is more important to you?

I really hope you see my point here.

thank you for your time.

-Bob Meier-
proud puckup truck owner

  I truly dislike the idea of getting more political in this (these)
groups, but I must speak up about the above statements.
  Simple majority does not guarantee a right, good or proper law. A town
full of bigots may pass a law barring specific ethnic groups from buying
homes in the town, but that DOESN'T make the law a good one. The same for
laws determining what a person can drive or park at a home.
  If everyone in the area was restricted from parking ANY vehicle outside
a garage and the law was enforced equally, it could be considered fair
and just. Maybe not good, but at least acceptable. To restrict it to
applying to pickups, vans, motorcycles, Yugos (well, I can understand
restricting Yugos) etc is discrimination. It is no more legal than laws
rstricting the use of 4 doors, stationwagons or non-Mercedes Benz cars.  
If the law restricted ALL work vehicles (cars and trucks), or all
non-running vehicles, or other general category, perhaps it might be
considered Constitutional.
 Many laws can be passed, but that doesn't mean the are Constitutional or
legally enforcable.

  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice, only
opinions.

Peace,
Pat L.

--
--------------------

.
.: Everybody has a right to live as they wish and a group of individuals have
.: a right to band together and decide how their environment is going to be
.: structured.  One variation of the restrictions these groups elect to
.: implement is called covenents.  You see them applied to usually exclusive
.: neighborhoods because these people want to live in an environment where
.: everything is emaculate.  Usually, this occurs in the "high rent
.: districts".  But it also happens in towns.  Santa Fe, here in New Mexico,
.: has a no Jack Brake restriction on semi trucks to keep noise down and
.: every building must conform to New Mexico style construction.  Now you
.: might object, but if enough people object then they can get the laws
.: changed.  But in the mean time, it is best to assume that most of the
.: residents like the law.  Now you may argue that only the rich have the
.: time to take part in the government processess but that is no excuse.  If
.: you can't live with the conditions than move.  As quick as you are to
.: holler about your rights to do such and such, remember that the other guy
.: has as much right to say what bothers him and try, by consent of the
.: majority, to restrict your activity in his presence.  Certain activities,
.: like freedom of speech, are protected but owning and driving a pickup and
.: parking cars on streets in front of your house are not.  And in some
.: neighborhoods they may insist that you park in the garage.
.
.  I truly dislike the idea of getting more political in this (these)
.groups, but I must speak up about the above statements.
.  Simple majority does not guarantee a right, good or proper law. A town
.full of bigots may pass a law barring specific ethnic groups from buying
.homes in the town, but that DOESN'T make the law a good one. The same for
.laws determining what a person can drive or park at a home.

Noone has posted the details of the law but, assuming it's true-
The "law" in question was probably an ordinance brought into existance
because it was referendum on which the people of the area voted and
passed.

.  If everyone in the area was restricted from parking ANY vehicle outside
.a garage and the law was enforced equally, it could be considered fair
.and just. Maybe not good, but at least acceptable. To restrict it to
.applying to pickups, vans, motorcycles, Yugos (well, I can understand
.restricting Yugos) etc is discrimination. It is no more legal than laws

Of course it's discrimination. So what? Every law is discriminatory to
one degree or another. And the system allows for laws to be challenged
and overturned.

.rstricting the use of 4 doors, stationwagons or non-Mercedes Benz cars.

 Apparently the word "rich" has been brought into this discussion on
 the basis of an assumption that trucks are owned mostly by the poor,
 when in fact, such an assumption is patently incorrect and probably
 was not even the basis for the ordinance.     If my guess is correct,
 the type of vehicle in consideration is neither a run-of-the-mill
 pickup nor is it a low-dollar vehicle.

.If the law restricted ALL work vehicles (cars and trucks), or all
.non-running vehicles, or other general category, perhaps it might be
.considered Constitutional.
. Many laws can be passed, but that doesn't mean the are Constitutional or
.legally enforcable.

 Correct. Exactly why the Supreme Court has ruled that many practices of
 Affirmative Action can no longer be legally continued.  Until we have the
 details of the ordinance and the reasons for which it came to pass, it's
 best to not jump to conclusions and declare an entire area of people to
 be a bunch of discriminating bigots.
.
.  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice, only
.opinions.
.
.Peace,

 See you at the next "teach-in"
                   Bill Edison

.Pat L.
.
.--
.--------------------

One can edit out the newsgroups that don't concern your reply. Can this
political stuff be taken of rec.autos.ANTIQUE? Please?

    o--------=| Charles Martin |=--o