Background- MN is a state that seatbelt violations are considered a secondary offense. Our legislature has now passed a bill to make it a primary offense. TPaw is apparently going to sign it. This will give MN 'millions' in federal money. Supporters say it will prevent the ~40 deaths a year that MN has from people not wearing seatbelts.

Rant- Taking money from the federal government is a concept that very much is the reason our local governments are suffering. Cities relied on money from the state. They took the money and their budgets went up. Now the state has to pull back, and who suffers? The cities with artificial budgets. "Now we can't pay our police or fix our roads."

Unfortunately, our state has to take the money just to survive. But, where does that get us? With defacto federal laws controlling our citizens.

Seatbelt use is not a matter of education anymore. People know the risks. If they aren't wearing their seatbelts, it's because they chose not to wear it.

Why does the federal government have to regulate seatbelt use?
Why does the federal government have to BRIBE states into following their ideals?
If seatbelt use is "the answer", why does the federal government have to BRIBE anyone to follow their thinking?

There is only one answer. Money. The states want it from the feds. The states want it from it's people. They don't actually give a shit about the ~40 people that die in MN from choosing not to wear a seatbelt.

oh crap, I just thought of something... I don't really want to go into it... Let this perculate in your mind for a bit: Seatbelt use will become a pretext for DUI stops. "Oh, it looked like you weren't wearing your seatbelt... Have you had anything to drink tonight?"

And then implied consent searches ....

Note: Wear your seatbelt, it's a good idea anyway. Your family will thank you if you ever need it.

Well, I think lack of seatbelt wearing is actually probable cause for arrest. I mean, if you can't be trusted to wear your seatbelt, you must be a drug dealer.

WTF?! Fuck them.

It is amazing that they can force us to wear a seatbelt but it's your choice to terminate a pregnancy.

Did this bill pass the Senate yet? I could only find that it passed the house yesterday.

ETA: It looks like it did pass: HF0108 Status

I'd have to agree that the most strongest supporters of this intrusion are those who say a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body (and thus can kill a baby) but she does not have the right not to wear a seatbelt (and thus possibly kill herself). Makes no sense to me.

On the other hand, I see plenty of kids not buckled in to seats while the driver is, which also makes no sense to me. I think that's one benefit of this bill; it is trying to force parents to buckle their kids.

This didn't make just make seat belts a primary offense, but now, adults have to wear them in the back seat, too. Nanny state BS.

100% right Pakrat. This is solely a state revenue driver through their click-it-or-ticket programs - and you are right, an opportunity for DWI tickets, etc.

We live in a state where there are x amount of motorcycle deaths every year and no helmet laws - follow the money -

Don't even get me started on the whole booster seat debate - STOP PROTECTING ME FROM MYSELF!!!

Would you prefer it if they were forced to terminate them???

Sigh. I can't really object to abortion discussions taking place in the NGFZ, but I can sigh . . .

But on topic, the use of federal funding to bully and bribe the state governments into crapping on the 10th amendment, was something the Founding Father's never anticipated & unfortunately that means there is no check or balance to protect from that particular abuse. I am not sure what the solution would be.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if one is a choice then why not the other. We all know that we have to live with the choices we make but it should be our choice not the goverments.

+1 to this. I may not approve of choices people make, but I believe that the choices are indeed theirs to make. It's always a slippery, slippery slope.

-Mark

Yup. +1. But when "it is for the children" is used to sell these abuses you come off as a monster trying to get it repealed. I will never say the opponents of freedom aren't smart. They may be evil or simply misguided, but they aren't dumb.