TexasCHLforum.com

pancho wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:The fines seem to be based upon whose name is on the registration, not who is actually driving.

So are parking ticket fines.

And if they were enforced and collected by private companies, like RLC's are, a lot of people would be equally upset. Perhaps I didn't make what I said clear. RLC's are operated by private corporations, not municipalities. A parking ticket is issued by a PD and collected as a fine by the city. Can anyone name any city/county/state/federal fine whose enforcement and collection is entrusted to a private company? I can see cities using private firms (mostly law) to collect taxes or audit, but to issue fines?

Does it bother anyone besides me that the lion's share of the revenue from RLC's goes to a company and not a city? The more tickets the RCL company issues, the more money they make. Is a company in Arizona that makes their bottom line from RLC fines really more interested in traffic safety than profit? The combination of factors is what bothers me.

Can anyone say with absolute certainty that one day CHL applicants would not be denied a license because of an unpaid RLC fine issued and collected by a company in another state, rather than a governmental entity? As usual, just my opinions.

You are correct. However, just because someone institutes a fine program to make it "legal" does not make it constitutional. And that is probably why so many people are up in arms about RLC's. That and the fact that unlike every other municipal fine I am aware of, RLC's are administered and collected by private companies. If even 10% of the things you read on websites seeking support to remove RLC's are really true, the thuggery from employees of the companies that enter into contracts with cities for RLC's smack of organized crime more than honest business. From my reading anyway.

And don't get me started on toll road fines. In Houston, folks all over the country who have never been to Houston have gotten fines from toll authorities. I imagine it is only a matter of time before the political heat gets too high. The news media has a field day with such shining examples of bureaucratic tomfoolery.

Chris wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:I find it fascinating that some here advocate just glibly complying with what is clearly an unconstitutional act (violating the 5th and 6th Amendments) by complying with a demand to pay a fine from a red light camera.

Clearly to who, you? The US 7th circuit court of appeals issued a ruling a few years ago and found it all quite legal. I'm not sure if you know how the courts work, but that's just under the US supreme Court where most case law is established.

This doesn't need to degenerate into a personal argument, but a simple Google search will reveal several state and federal court decisions made subsequent to the 7th Circuit decision that hold RLC's unconstitutional. And yes, I do know how the court system works.

So red light cameras take facial photos as well? Even if a drug bust is on camera and witnessed, how would you get a conviction without someone identifying the defendant by some provable testimony? Numerous people say they have gotten red light fines when they were not driving the vehicle. The fines seem to be based upon whose name is on the registration, not who is actually driving. If that was accepted practice, an officer could ticket anyone they liked who happened to be in the car for a traffic infraction. Therein lies the rub.

Personally, I believe in enforcement the old fashioned way. If there is a particularly dangerous intersection post an officer there. Let him write tickets. I have faith in LEO's. I have somewhat less in self-serving bureaucrats and private companies who make money based on how many fines are issued. I know it costs. Let the politicians figure a way to put more officers on the force and quit wasting money on pet projects. BTW more and more court decisions are going against RLC's.

tbrown wrote:So did you refuse to pay $140 to Texas DPS for a RKBA license?

Guess I didn't word it right. I didn't imply that license was tantamount to a fine. I did imply that our government cannot violate our rights that are granted by a higher authority with impunity - even in imposing civil fines. Not any of our rights. The Constitution is there for a reason. In my opinion at least.

I find it fascinating that some here advocate just glibly complying with what is clearly an unconstitutional act (violating the 5th and 6th Amendments) by complying with a demand to pay a fine from a red light camera.

I wonder what the outcome will be if a municipality decides to impose a fine by installing a neighborhood camera to catch gun owners moving a weapon to their car for a day at the range thereby violating the same Constitution, but reasonably adding to the public safety by keeping guns off the streets. Would the imposition of, well let's think liberal for the sake of argument, a $100 fine per violation be something we would just advise to pay up? Would we advocate paying the one and not paying the other?

Can anyone successfully argue that cities that do not believe the Constitution applies to residents will not decide the 2nd Amendment is as easily violated as the 5th and 6th? All by the automated imposition of fines. Do red light cameras work? I would respond that isn't the real question. In my view the question is do they violate the Constitution? And what violations are we willing to tolerate, and indeed promote? I'm not sure I'm interested in a government which can so easily violate the Constitution with impunity granting me a CHL - a government license to exercise my Constitutional right. My opinions in any event. Fire away.