FLORIDA MAY SOON RIDE FREE! Florida bikers are anxiously anticipating that Governor Jeb Bush will follow his brother George W's lead and sign the helmet law repeal bill that took years of hard work and political effort to put on his desk.
James "Doc" Reichenbach, President and Lobbyist for ABATE OF FLORIDA, spearheaded the repeal effort, which culminated in the Senate voting 35-1 on May 3rd to give final approval of the bill and send it to the governor to sign, veto or let it go into law without his signature.
Texas Governor and Presidential hopeful George W. Bush Jr. signed a bill into law in 1997 to allow freedom of choice for responsible adult Texas motorcyclists, and Florida riders are cautiously optimistic that their brotherly governor will do likewise. Florida Governor Jeb Bush has indicated in the past that he would likely sign such a bill if it got to his desk.
State Representative Nancy Argenziano, a motorcycle riding legislator, has championed the helmet repeal bill which will exempt riders 21 and older who carry a minimum of $10,000 in medical insurance.
It ain't a done deal yet, but odds are there'll be a helmet-free Daytona Bike Week in 2001! I'm ready to start packing already.
NATIONAL COALITION OF MOTORCYCLISTS (NCOM)

NHTSA LIED Those of us who've been fighting in the trenches for bikers' rights have known all along that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been fudging their statistics when lobbying against us on helmet laws. But now comes word from Ms. NHTSA herself, Saint Joan of Claybrook, who's vision and leadership brought us such governmental boondoggles as the backwards-steering "Safer-Cycle," that NHTSA mislead the public regarding the safety of air bags.
According to a WASHINGTON TIMES editorial "Death By Safety Experts" forwarded to us by COWBOY over the Internet, former Carter-era NHTSA chieftain Joan Claybrook recently admitted that NHTSA's false or inaccurate claims over the years have "hurt" the agency's reputation and believability with the public, particularly with the ongoing fiasco over air bags.
Among other things, the editorial charges that while serving as NHTSA administrator Claybrook claimed that mandating car manufacturers to install air bags "was necessary because of then-chronic underuse of safety belts. She said that air bags could actually supplant seat belts and would provide superior protection"
It goes on that "Miss Claybrook, like her mentor Ralph Nader, also claimed that air bags were the safest way to arrest the forward movement of an unbuckled child in a frontal impact. In fact, an Associated Press photo surfaced recently depicting Mr. Nader demonstrating an air bag simulator with an unbuckled young girl."
We now know that it is precisely the unbuckled occupants, especially infants and young children, who are most likely to be killed or maimed by a deploying air bag.
"Mr. Nader and Miss Claybrook have yet to be called to account for their dangerously misleading advocacy," says the Times.
Claybrook and Nader also put forth the utterly unsubstantiated claim that air bags would save up to 9,000 lives annually, states the article, although "No factual evidence was ever given in support of this gratuitous assertion. It is looked upon with derision by knowledgeable industry analysts."
Claybrook's recent, belated apology for the flood of dangerous falsehoods about air bags she turned loose some 20 years ago is not much comfort to the more than 150 people, many of them children, who've been killed and the thousands who've been injured by these government-mandated "safety" devices.
"True, air bags have certainly saved lives," admits the article, "But there is no question that they have also killed. No other safety device required by federal law has such a mixed record of success."
The Times editorial concludes; "How many people will have to die before the government concedes it made a mistake by ignoring the engineers and listening instead to know-nothing busybodies such as Madam Claybrook is anybody's guess."
CLIP AND SAVE this important news item, and show it to your legislators the next time NHTSA shows up at a hearing to testify against you. If they lied once to promote their own private agenda, then why should we believe them now?

NAVAJO NATION REPEALS HELMET LAW If you thought that states like Arizona and New Mexico didn't have a helmet law for adult riders, you were wrong...at least until now. Although state laws in those Southwest states allow riders 18 and older to ride without a helmet, a mandatory helmet requirement has been in existence on all Navajo Nations land, even though it was seldom enforced by Tribal Police.
But the tribal council recently voted unanimously 57-0, with no opposition, to repeal the helmet law on their Native Indian reservation lands, which is considered to be a separate and autonomous government, and bring their law into compliance with other Southwestern states comprising the Navajo Nation.
The helmet law repeal was signed by Navajo Nation President Kelsay Begay on May 8, 2000.
NCOM NEWS & NOTES

BIKERS EXEMPTED FROM KENTUCKY GANG LAW As more states enact tougher new laws against youth street gangs, more and more motorcycle clubs are being targeted by law enforcement under the umbrella of these so-called "gang laws."
Kentucky bikers recently took on their gang law and succeeded in taking the teeth out of what had become an anti-biker harassment tool.
Senate Bill 223 offered by Senator Gerald Neal, while not originally asked for by the KENTUCKY MOTORCYCLE ASSOCIATION/KBA and the CONFEDERATION OF CLUBS OF KENTUCKY, was seen as a vehicle to correct an error in their current gang law statute. Under the Kentucky law the definition of a gang not only included the intended individuals but the Boy Scouts, VFW members and the University of Kentucky Cheerleaders as well. Working with Senator Neal and with a huge help from Senator Dick Roeding, they were able to attach Senate Floor Amendment (1) to SB 223.
According to KMA/KBA President Jay Huber, "This amendment excludes corporations, unions, associations and fraternal organizations unless organized for the primary purpose of engaging in criminal activity from the definition."
He continued, "This amendment should cover most motorcycle clubs and organizations in the state as well as other groups which may become a target of police harassment."
"The efforts of the recently formed Confederation of Clubs Kentucky should be duly noted," Huber said. "Without the efforts of the members and member organizations the path may not have been so smooth. Through the phone calls, contacts and visits, you made all the difference in the world."
The bill was signed by Governor Paul Patton and will become effective July 15, 2000.

FLORIDA COURT UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WEAR "COLORS" A Broward County Florida Court dismissed trespassing charges against a motorcyclist who refused to remove his vest bearing club insignia at a Pompano Beach bar, citing that such clothing is protected as free speech under the Constitution.
Mark Goedeke, a member of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club had been an invited guest of Doctor Feelgood's bar and had been peacefully patronizing the establishment for several hours when the night manager came on duty and advised him to either remove his "colors" or leave.
Mr. Goedeke refused to comply, and a Deputy Sheriff was called to the scene pursuant to Florida's "Trespass after Warning" statute, which raises trespass from a second degree misdemeanor (60 days) to a first degree misdemeanor (1 year).
The deputy responded and asked Goedeke to either remove his vest or leave. He again refused and was subsequently arrested.
County Court Judge Hon. Robert Diaz dismissed the case, finding that a First Amendment violation had been perpetrated by the state against the biker, and that in fact the enforcement of the trespass charges (F.S.810.10(b)) would be in direct violation of Mr. Goedeke's Constitutional right to freedom of speech.
The State of Florida has appealed the decision.
Subsequently, Goedeke retained the services of Southern Florida Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (A.I.M.) attorney Steven D. Rowe to handle the appeal and Rowe has argued to the court that, "The writing on clothing is a means of expression protected by the First Amendment. Defendant would have been permitted to stay if he removed the 'protected' clothing, to wit: it was the vest that was arrested, rather than the defendant."
In his appellate brief, A.I.M. Attorney Rowe argued to the Circuit Court that they should uphold the dismissal because; "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is one of the most often litigated of all the sections of the Bill of Rights. The Appellant (State of Florida) completely misses the issue in this case. The issue is not one of whether the elements of a minor offense have been met, but whether the Appellee (Mr. Goedeke) could be arrested and tried solely for exhibiting certain non-offensive lettering on his clothing in a quasi-public forum, and in direct violation of the First Amendment."
Rowe, who also serves as legal counsel to the Confederation of Clubs of Southern Florida, concluded his arguments saying, "The facts of the case indicate that Appellee did no more than exercise his right to expression guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Any possible misconduct was that of the owner who stated, "Take your vest off or get out, I don't like your kind."
If the lower court's dismissal of the case is upheld by the Circuit Court, the decision would establish a legal precedent protecting the Constitutional right to wear motorcycle club colors under the First Amendment.
"It has been clearly established that the entire incident is an issue of speech, as the biker did not misbehave and would have been allowed to stay had he removed his vest," said Rowe, "We believe that the trial court was justified in dismissing the case when to do otherwise would have stripped our client of his rights under the United States Constitution. We now have to wait and see if the appellate court agrees with us."
AID TO INJURED MOTORCYCLISTS (A.I.M.)

MOTORCYCLING AS AN OLYMPIC SPORT? Spectators at the Sydney 2000 Olympics could see motorcycles taking part, should a proposed indoor trials demonstration get approval.
A proposal has been put forward to the International Olympic Committee for the best trials riders in the world to demonstrate their craft at this year's Olympic Games.
The Federation Internationale Motorcycliste (FIM) is paying to get the riders and their bikes to the games in hopes that it will be a popular enough attraction to include it as a medal sport in future Olympics.
AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION (AMA)

RECORD BREAKING ATTENDANCE AT NCOM CONVENTION More than a thousand bikers rights activists from across the country and around the globe gathered in San Francisco over Mothers Day weekend for the NATIONAL COALITION OF MOTORCYCLISTS 15th annual NCOM Convention, where standing room only crowds made this the largest motorcycle Freedom Fighters conference ever! Virtually every state was represented from the ranks of motorcycle rights activists and patch holders, all coming together to communicate, network and, of course, socialize.
A highlight of this year's NCOM Convention was U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell receiving the Ron Roloff Lifetime Achievement Award at the Silver Spoke Awards Banquet, a well deserved tribute to his tireless crusade for bikers rights on Capitol Hill. Branscombe Richmond, star of the TV series "Renegade" and newly appointed spokesman for Indian Motorcycles, was presented the Silver Spoke Award for Entertainment.
Next year's NCOM Convention will be held May 10-12, 2001, at the Marriott Hotel & Resort in Orlando, Florida, and will be hosted by ABATE of Florida and the Confederations of Clubs of Florida.
STAY TUNED for more information on this Convention in next month's issue.

NOTICE: WE'VE MOVED The National Coalition of Motorcyclists, Aid to Injured Motorcyclists and the Law Offices of Richard M. Lester have moved our offices to 21054 Sherman Way, Third Floor, Canoga Park, CA 91303. Our new fax line is (818) 992-1515. All other phone numbers and e-mail addresses remain the same: NCOM (800) 525-5355, AIM (800) ON-A-BIKE; e-mail aimncom@aimncom.com.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: FREEDOM FIGHTERS IN A FREE COUNTRY? I was listening to a debate on NPR (National Public Radio) several months ago when a conservative activist made several remarks about the "fringe" elements of the right wing. The activist was exasperated that "fringe elements" tend to get the attention, and draw away from the real issues (what those are he didn't say). He concluded his remarks with this: "These people call themselves "Freedom Fighters." They obsess over nominal issues. They see conspiracies around every corner. How in the world can someone be a freedom fighter in a free country?"
It's a good question, and there is an answer. There is no doubt we live in a country which placed the rights of individuals over the interests of the state from inception. Our freedoms are guaranteed. For over 200 years the foundations of the American concept have been fought over, fought for, interpreted and mis-interpreted. Freedom survives. We can go anywhere, say anything, believe anything, and pretty much "be" anything. Rather tough to "freedom fight" that, or is it?
I don't consider myself "fringe." Don't wear the stuff either. However I do consider myself to be part of a uniquely American legacy: the ongoing debate about the role of government in an individual's life. The founding fathers could not agree on this. Americans today cannot agree either. Today, just like yesterday, there are those who feel strongly that it is the government's responsibility to take care of everyone. An individual is one part of a whole, and government is populist business. On the other side is the minimalist view: government's responsibility and role is clearly defined within a living document...the Constitution of the United States of America. The government has no business interfering with, or dictating individualism. And individual rights are not part of a collective. I tend to think America has survived within the middle ground, with a rich history of shining moments reflecting both arguments.
I have also laid my lid on the minimalist side. Politics is a fluid business, government is not. I don't want "interpretive" protection from decision making. I want responsibility. I am not interested in government interpretation of the human spirit. I am not interested in the numbing down of the national conscience. I believe the American experience belongs to individuals. Seem like a vague concept? Don't think so. Every one of us who has spent even one day working to keep the government off our scooters has just participated in the great debate. "Don't tell me to wear a helmet. What do you mean my pipes are too loud? A law prohibiting any modifications? Global design standards?" And so on and so forth. I don't think the founding fathers had motorcycles in mind. But I would advocate they had the concept very much at hand. They expected all Americans to be freedom fighters, individually, and collectively. To be otherwise is negligent. I'm not so sure resolution was a priority with the founders. Participation was - and still is.
Can you be a "freedom fighter" in a free country? I think so. I have no problem, or conflict, riding a defining banner of government involvement. It's a small banner. Oh, and no fringe please.
KAREN BOLIN, ABATE OF WASHINGTON