Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 8:42:39 AM
|
Those involved in the lawsuit have made no comments on the forum. But, you can get some questions ansewered today at www.dailyhome.com There are two interesting articles there.
|
Name: |
jawjagal
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 9:56:27 AM
|
Good morning, CAT. Hope you are doing well. How's the CAT family?
|
Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 10:00:36 AM
|
Could'nt be better Jaw. All is wonderful. Thanks for asking. Tell Tieoneona hello for me.
|
Name: |
jawjagal
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 10:08:43 AM
|
My son stole my shirt (that was my bedroom shirt.....)and he is wearing it all the time now. He also asks me how you are doing.
:-)
|
Name: |
au67
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 10:48:59 AM
|
These articles and many of the posts on this forum point out the fact that this is a typical piece of legislation which does not really address or solve a problem (perceived or otherwise), and will (if held to be constitutional) most likely create an enforcement nightmare. Whether it's boating laws, tax code, social sevices, education, etc., convoluted government involvement usually produces poor results.
|
Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 12:28:08 PM
|
WOW.... That is a very honest opinion, and post. I agree with you completely.
|
Name: |
fulltimer
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 7:00:29 PM
|
The article said that the law suite was brought by "Lake Martin boat owners and a Jasper boat dealer ". Will someone please define "Lake Martin Boat owners" for me.
|
Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 8:04:51 PM
|
I am a Lake Martin Boat owner. you are a Lake Martin boat owner (I presume).
|
Name: |
Pier Pressure
-
|
|
Subject: |
Its too bad
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 11:12:51 PM
|
there wasn't a petition. How about thousands of plantiff's? Think that might have made a differing impact?
|
Name: |
WSMS
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/1/2006 11:58:08 PM
|
So you're saying that fulltimer (if he is indeed a Lake Martin boat owner) was one of those that brought the lawsuit? Judging from his post, that's news to him! :-)
|
Name: |
fulltimer
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/2/2006 7:44:33 AM
|
Do you have to live on the lake....... own property on the lake.... or just use the lake to be a Lake Martin boat owner? I know some people from Calf who use the lake.
|
Name: |
Pier Pressure
-
|
|
Subject: |
Update on Lawsuit
|
Date:
|
10/2/2006 12:08:15 PM
|
Last I recall, this is public use property. That makes everyone a potential Lake Martin Boat owner. Maybe we could have gone nation-wide for the petetion...
|
Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
Subject: |
PP
|
Date:
|
10/2/2006 6:44:08 PM
|
The National Park Service banned PWCs from their property without a legislative vote and it worked. What in the world makes anyone think the Alabama law is un-constitutional based on civil rights issues.
|
I am sure the National Park Service had scientific reasoning (not just financial funding from developers) behind their reasoning. Such as noise polution disturbing wildlife on reserves, or even actual accident statistics. Whereas this law has only opinionated poorly manifested excuses. Someone could easily sell me on this if they provided proof to me that there was either ecological damage or safety issues which were 100% the result of the size or speed of the boat (taking away the human factor). As of right now every excuse I hear for this bill all comes down to the driver of the vessle. It seems to me that those who support the bill have something against the poeple who own large/fast boats and will not admit that these boats are just as safe as any other when operated propery (and within any legal limits)
|
|