If you want seat belts, wipers, turn signals and air bags, keep pushing to legalize them on the street.

 

and don't forget a roll bar ,and mud flaps

 

It does require a minimum amount of intelligence to operate an ATV.
Congratulations, you win.

 

I'm sorry can you point out where motorcycles have to be equipt with seat belts, wipers, turn signals, and air bags?

 

the state of MN requires a 4-wheeled vehical to have a front window, windshield whiper ,signals ,brake lights ,turn signals ,and seat belts ,my best friend dicovered this when he was trying to license his dune buggy

 

4 wheel road going vehicles in the US have many different requirements, than single track vehicles.

 

And, motorcycles are also required to have turn signals.

 

First, I would like to say this. I completely agree it would be a lot of fun to hop onto my new Honda ATV and drive downtown. I would absolutely love the ability to ride anywhere my heart desires. I would be the first to say we have too many laws in place in this country. Now, with that being said I would also like to say the following to "waterfront95."

I'm not sure where you went/are going to lawschool. I'm not sure if you have graduated. I suspect that if you are in lawshool you are a 1L or at most a 2L considering you have some knowledge of constitutional law. Regardless of your current or past plight to obtain a law degree you should NOT get on a forum and try to provoke others into filing a lawsuit. Especially considering the amount of frivioulous lawsuites pending today that are being funded by our tax dollars.

Regarding your "advice" and potential claims that are available to a willing plaintiff I say this. If you are so convinced of its success why are you not filing the suit yourself? Let me answer for you. Perhaps it's becuase you haven't finished law school and do not have an attorney. If you had an attorney that was the least bit competent he would tell you that if a suit like the one you are suggesting were to be filed it would fail at the first sight of a motion to dismiss. This is becuase the current laws are sure to pass constitutional muster.

Regarding your claim. The right to travel is, as you said, a fundamental right guarenteed to us by the fourteenth amendment. However, the right to travel on an ATV on public roads is most certainly not what the framers of the constitution meant as they were writing the document that is the foundation for our government today. Before you say it, I know there were no ATVs when the constitution was written. Therefore, we (including you) are left only with the interpretations of that right given to us by our United States Supreme Court.

If you remember the right to travel cases that establish our current laws they dealt specifically with the right to travel in interstate commerce. Remember Heart of Atlanta Motel and what the court said there? If not then here is the nature of the right: Individuals have a right to travel from state to state, which encompasses the right to leave and enter another state and to be treated equally if they become permanent residents of that state. The court basically addressed the right to travel and how it affects commerce. It is highly unlikely that a court would find your inability to drive an ATV on the highway affects interstate commerce. Should you decide to participate in interstate commerce you are free to do so in your car or other legal mode of transportation. Therefore, you have not been deprived of a fundamental right and strict scrutiny WOULD NOT apply.

By the way, your equal protection argument would fail becuase even if riding an atv on the highway was a fundamental right, it is one that is denied to all persons. You have no suspect class and without a class you have no EP argument.

Now, since SS doesn't apply you are left only with a rational basis argument. You are almost correct with the elements you have listed, however you should have continued in your research and actually determined what the elemets mean.
Rational Basis means the government must have a legitimate governmental purpose that is logically related to the end it is attempting to achieve. A Court will generally accept any conceivable legitimate purpose as sufficient, even if it is not the stated actual purpose of the government. For nonfundamental rights the government must act rationally in pursuit of some health, safety or other "general welfare" goal. Remember that if the legislating body can in ANY WAY attribute their actions to the excercise of their police powers (i.e. health, safety, general welfare) then a court will NOT deem the legislation uncontstitional. Now, the states interest here is pretty obvious. There should be little question as to whether or not the law you complain of is the excercise of a state's police power. There should also be little quesiton as to whether or not the law is logically related. The state doesn't want you to get hurt or hurt someone else with your brute force while riding on a public road. They pass a law prohibiting you from riding on the public road. Now, if you get hurt or hurt someone it should be somewhere other than a public road. That is a legitimate governmental interest which is logically related.

Finally, if you attended a considerable portion of law school you should have also taken professional responsiblity. In that class you should have learned how the state bar (regardless of the state) feels about the contents of the post you have made here. You are both promoting the filing of a frivolous lawsuit and providing legal advice, (bad advice at that), on a blog. Then, you give your email address inviting further legal questions. You must be insane. I have no doubt you haven't finished law school. At least I hope you haven't, becuase if you have you should know the criminal and civil ramifications of your actions here. If you are still a student, don't forget you still have to answer to the bar in the state where you are attending law school. If your a dropout then you shouldn't mislead people with your BS. Here is an idea.......take the 8k and all the money you have to buy land to ride on (WRONG! I OWN HUNDREDS OF ACRE ALL OVER THE PLACE)..............cash it all in..........and repeat law school.

Also, before you mislead anyone else, you may sue a state in federal court provided you have standing.

To everyone else, I'm sorry for typing all of this. I felt it necessary considering the information he was providing to you all was, to say the least, inaccurate. It all comes down to this. We can't ride on the street. IF we have the money to sue then just buy a bike (like others suggested) and forget about it.

 

Use your heads "a little". They would NEVER require a seat belt on an ATV. Just because it is a 4 wheeled vehicle, you straddle it in case you didn't notice. That would have to put it under some motorcycle laws.

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.