Posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
It varies, but for the most part, it's 75 on the interstate (65 truck speed), and 70 (65 truck speed) on the two lanes. Go to a state like North Dakota, and you don't know what the speed limit is if your not paying attention. The whole state is a speed trap.
I should also add that the seatbelt law is $20 per occupant in the car, and if the traffic authorities even catch you without your seatbelt on, they can stop and ticket you the $20.Montana Traffic Laws
Speed Limits:
Urban district: 25 (ref. 61-8-303, MCA)
Construction zones: 35 (ref. 61-8-303, MCA)
State highways: Reasonable and prudent (day), 55 (night) (ref. 61-8-303, MCA)
Interstates: Reasonable and prudent (day), 65 (night) (ref. 61-8-303, MCA)
Speed limits are absolute for all roads, meaning you may not exceed them under any circumstances.Montana's speed limits are enforced through the use of pacing, radar and airplanes. In those cities and towns with more than 2,500 people where radar is used, a warning sign must be placed along roads leading into that town though absence of such signs does not invalidate an otherwise proper arrest. (ref. 61-8-704, MCA) The use of radar is acceptable evidence. (ref. 61-8-702, MCA)
Montana's daytime speed limit is "reasonable and prudent" for cars. Trucks are limited to 65. At night, it's 55 on two-lane roads and 65 on four-lane roads for everyone. County roads are not covered by the "R&P" speed limit, they still have numerical limits in force. (ref. 61-8-303, MCA)
"Reasonable and prudent" speeds are determined by the arresting officer but are probably between 70 and 85 mph. If you are passing most of the traffic on the road, then you are not traveling at a safe speed. A violation of the basic speed rule (61-8-303, MCA) carries fines ranging from $70 to over $500.
Points:
Drag racing/speed contests: 5
DUI: 10
Leaving the scene of an accident (death/injury): 8
Leaving the scene of an accident (vehicle damage only): 4
Operating with a suspended/revoked license: 6
Operating without insurance: 5
Operating without a license: 2
Reckless driving: 5
Speeding: 3
Vehicular assault: 12
Vehicular homicide: 15
All other moving violations are worth 2 points.
You're considered a habitual traffic offender if you get 30 or more points in a three year period. If two or more charges are filed concurrently, only the offense carrying the highest point value can be charged against you. (ref. 61-11-203, MCA)
>The Continental Congress created the states...
You don't seriously believe that the Continental Congress got together and decreed "let there be states so that our land shall be subdivided for easier management" do you? If so your historical education is more deficient than I thought.
I can call you part of the Moron faction much more persuasively than you can call me part of any "Socialist" faction and I know what the latter term actually means as opposed to the vague, lump-whatever-I-disagree-with concept you apparently operate under. But that will neither change any opinions within the Moron faction nor among the Rational.
I should more properly have stated that the Continental Congress gave impetuse to the formation of States by calling for the colonies to write State constitutions. My expression was overstated. But the concept that the Nation preceded the State and the states is still valid. Colonials considered themselves to be a People, Americans, for a decade before the Revolution broke out.
A "new take" is a court decision not a state legislative action.
This is the irrational claim of the socialist faction, true enough.
Why would an NRA member fight Montana's effort?
I can call you part of the Moron faction much more persuasively than you can call me part of any "Socialist" faction
You fight against Montana's effort to challenge arms infringements. -- So do socialists. -- That is an undeniable fact.
and I know what the latter term actually means as opposed to the vague, lump-whatever-I-disagree-with concept you apparently operate under. But that will neither change any opinions within the Moron faction nor among the Rational.
Whatever. Rant on.
bump
Nice try but it won't work. They're trying it with marijuana in California and it's not going to work there either. And it's free marijuana so California is claiming that it's not even "commerce".
But they're still going to lose. As they should.
You know as well as I do that this is just a childish "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" piece of legislation. We're not shipping it interstate so Congress can't touch us. Nyah, nyah.
Puh-leeze.
That's it? The great scholar robertpaulsen,robertpaulsen just proclaims the Montana effort to be a neener-neener, nyah-nyah moment, and retires?
Puh-leeze.
The USSC will use, as precedent, the landmark case, Wickard v Filburn to strike down both cases.
"Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who argued that his wheat crop should not fall under federal production quotas because much of it was consumed on his own farm. The Supreme Court held that even if that wheat did not enter interstate commerce, wheat grown for use on a farm altered supply and demand in the national market."
If guns are manufactured in Montana and purchased in Montana, that means that Montanans are not buying them from other states. Correct? Does that then negatively affect interstate commerce?
Now, normally, who cares? BUT, Congress has chosen to regulate the interstate commerce of firearms. Therefore, anything that substantially affects their regulatory efforts (and this would) is their business and they have the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate that intrastate traffic also.
Ask yourself. What if every state did this? Wouldn't this make a mockery of Congress' regulatory efforts? Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Commerce Clause? That states could undermine and subvert Congressional efforts?
Now, since the issue is guns, you're all in favor of the states spitting on the feds. So, what, do we start making exceptions to the Commerce Clause to please you?
Maybe it's better if we, instead, take this up with the people we elected? The ones who wrote these laws and tell them to repeal the laws or they will be voted out?
Wouldn't this be better than corrupting the Commerce Clause because of this one issue?
Or is it just easier to sit at your keyboard and type, "The courts are twisting the Commerce Clause .... blah, blah, blah ... what are we going to do ...?" Time to get off our collective butts and vote out the people writing these confiscatory gun laws. That's where we have our power. Not with unelected judges.
It's almost identical to Raich v Ashcroft, the medical marijuana case in California.
So you imagine, in your crackerjack lawyer mode. Personally, I think your neener-neener style, as above, suits you better.
The USSC will use, as precedent, the landmark case, Wickard v Filburn to strike down both cases. "Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who argued that his wheat crop should not fall under federal production quotas because much of it was consumed on his own farm. The Supreme Court held that even if that wheat did not enter interstate commerce, wheat grown for use on a farm altered supply and demand in the national market."
Actually, the way Scalia & Thomas have been opining, your beloved commerce clause may be in trouble.
If guns are manufactured in Montana and purchased in Montana, that means that Montanans are not buying them from other states. Correct? Does that then negatively affect interstate commerce?
Makes sense to Mrs Brady, aye robert?
Now, normally, who cares? BUT, Congress has chosen to regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.
Under the 2nd, they have no such choice. -- But you say "who cares"?
Therefore, anything that substantially affects their regulatory efforts (and this would) is their business and they have the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate that intrastate traffic also.
Ah yes, Congress's business is all neatly wrapped up "under the Necessary and Proper Clause", -- they can do most anything to 'regulate' away our freedoms. Rattle your chains robert, and drink some more Kool-Aid.
Ask yourself. What if every state did this? Wouldn't this make a mockery of Congress' regulatory efforts? Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Commerce Clause? That states could undermine and subvert Congressional efforts?
States have the power, and the duty, to check & balance federal excesses. Socialists like you can't understand that point, but it is a rather basic principle of the Republic.
Now, since the issue is guns, you're all in favor of the states spitting on the feds. So, what, do we start making exceptions to the Commerce Clause to please you? Maybe it's better if we, instead, take this up with the people we elected?
That's exactly what Montanans are trying to do, and you oppose them.
The ones who wrote these laws and tell them to repeal the laws or they will be voted out? Wouldn't this be better than corrupting the Commerce Clause because of this one issue? Or is it just easier to sit at your keyboard and type, "The courts are twisting the Commerce Clause .... blah, blah, blah ... what are we going to do ...?"
Off you go in your rant mode again. Poor little robert.
Time to get off our collective butts and vote out the people writing these confiscatory gun laws. That's where we have our power. Not with unelected judges.
We? -- You write reams of prose defending gun prohibitions and then in closing try to ally yourself with defenders of the 2nd? How laughable.
After reading your post #150, I had to agree that my reply to you was too brief and not up to my usual standard. So I took the time to repost, given your admonition, and actually put some thought and explanations into it.
Well, little did I know that all you wanted to do was pick it apart and make fun of it. Hey, fine. It's a free country. You're welcome to do that.
But actions do have consequences. Be advised that you picked apart my last post to you.
Whatever.. Be advised that your posts supporting unconstitutional prohibitions will continue to be "picked apart".
You should pick up a copy of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Dr. Thomas Woods. Great read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.