"Checkpoint" leaving SC on 322 W

[pex]

Can anyone explain the nature of the outbound checkpoint on 322 West coming from State College? I have heard of it, but that it was not a DUI checkpoint. I almost considered making a lawsuit out of it!

Could anyone expound on the nature of the checkpoint?

This would have been Saturday night, I think. Maybe they were looking for smuggled arts from artfest.

[Asterix909]

I have heard of it, but that it was not a DUI checkpoint.

I'd like to know who said it was not a DUI checkpoint. Because I'm willing to bet that is exactly what it was.

[ithinkimamedic]

I'll place money on it either being a DUI check point or a seatbelt check point. I'm fine with either since DUI is illegal and I've seen first hand the outcomes of DUI accidnets and Seatbelt usage is now a requirement and I've also seen the outcomes of non usage.

Got a problem with either of them... move to canada!

[pex]

I'll place money on it either being a DUI check point or a seatbelt check point. I'm fine with either since DUI is illegal and I've seen first hand the outcomes of DUI accidnets and Seatbelt usage is now a requirement and I've also seen the outcomes of non usage.

Got a problem with either of them... move to canada!

Wow. I can almost hear the queuing of this song right after you get finished saying "move to canada":

If tomorrow all the things were gone I’d worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.

[ithinkimamedic]

I'm not even going to quantify that with a response, put your foil hat back on.

[bt-99]

We have "safety Checks" in our township and i have told many people, politicians and police that I don't believe them to be a good idea.
Even if you believe that "Seatbelt usage is now a requirement" it does not mean that there are not constitutional issues about police setting up random seat belt "safety" checks.
This is a very thin line between public safety issues and an excuse for police to make illegal searches. I for one do not think there is adequate protection of individual rights when they do these random checks. It is not a large leap between asking for insurance papers at a roadblock to asking for identification papers,to the gulag.
Try reading a little of the history of the 20th century. Gun rights and individual liberties are closely related and we need to be vigilent to protect both.
We actually have a long history about unreasonable search and seizure issues in this country and some believe,including me, that seat belt checks cross the line of reasonableness.
I have a very big problem with safety checks and I am not moving to Canada.

[pex]

Perhaps it would be just as well to place oath-and-constitutionality checks where we take the identities of people driving, to see if they work for government, and then see if their recent actions have been toward their oath to one or more constitutions. For legislators, for example, their recently created, sponsored, and voted upon bills would need to be checked for their reverence for the constitution, and upon probable cause that they were not, they shall be arrested.

That they drive but are not selected specifically, they shall be forced into the checkpoint. That they work for the government is reasonable articulable suspicion that they are acting unconstitutionally...that they are actively acting for the government is probably probable cause that they acting unconstitutionally. Let's let the courts sort it out, alright?

[bt-99]

Great! You know there have been several bills introduced in PA and one every year on the Federal level that would require that any new bill have a committee sign off that based upon their best due dilligence they think the bill is constitutional BEFORE they pass it.
The legislators would have to actualy believe a bill was constitutional BEFORE IT BECOMES LAW.
Guess what-not much interest by our esteemed elected officials.
They don't want to be handcuffed by some law requiring them to only pass laws that they think are legal?
I wonder why that is?

[lexington86]

I don't think there should be any laws saying that people must wear a seatbelt. I feel the same about helmet laws.


That said, if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or helmet and smash your head all over the pavement, don't come crying to me (or the government)!


I wear a seatbelt in my car and helmet on my motorcycle because I know both devices can save my life. That's what responsible people do.

[Evolution]

I don't think there should be any laws saying that people must wear a seatbelt. I feel the same about helmet laws.


That said, if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or helmet and smash your head all over the pavement, don't come crying to me (or the government)!


I wear a seatbelt in my car and helmet on my motorcycle because I know both devices can save my life. That's what responsible people do.

Absolutely! +2. This is supposed to be a free country and I am very well capable of making my own life decisions. I don't need the federal government to play the parent!