![IMG_0342[1]](https://i0.wp.com/starvinlarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/img_03421.jpg?w=325&h=243&ssl=1 "IMG_0342[1]")
Today’s lies are just getting more unbelievable.
From the “Common Sense Gun Control” Crowd…
Posted: April 22, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshatteryTags: 2nd amendment, anti-gun asshattery, Gun Control, Gun Rights
“Nobody wants to take your guns.” Yeah, right.
“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for
controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” — Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)
“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)
“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”
Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Andrew Cuomo
“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”
Michael Dukakis
“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” — U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman
“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” — Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post
“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.”
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94
“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” — John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990
“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” — Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA
“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” — Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
— Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” — U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” — Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes
interview.
“We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.” — Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.” — Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress
“I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” — William J. Clinton, 8/11/93
“The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” — U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,
1991.
“I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” — Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report “Handguns in America”, October
1997
“We must get rid of all the guns.” — Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on “The Phil Donahue Show” September 1994
“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” — Sarah Brady 7/1/88
“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” — Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994
“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…” — U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93
“My bill … establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns.” — U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal.” — Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker’ magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f
“Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.” — President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” — U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
“The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” — The Washington Post – “Legal Guns Kill Too” – November 5, 1999
“There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution.” — USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?” – January 16, 1992
“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012
” 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.”
Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota
“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” — NIJ Memo on a new “Assault Weapon” Ban. 2013
“The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection” (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)
“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013
California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.
California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.
California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.
California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. (“High-cap” means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40’s–AK pattern rifles–or 60’s–AR pattern rifles.)
“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).
“People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.” Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? “Final Solution” anyone?)
“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey’s State Legislature, May 9, 2013
“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013
Supreme Court: Cops Can’t Violate 4th Amendment by Prolonging Traffic Stops to Wait for Drug Dogs
Posted: April 21, 2015 by gamegetterII in Police state USSATags: 4th amendment, fourth amendment, police state, police state USSA
“We can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement,” Sotomayor declared. “Particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.”
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police are not allowed to extend a citizen’s detention, during a normal traffic stop, while officers probe for evidence of crimes unrelated to the offense that prompted the initial stop.
In the case before the court, Rodriguez v. U.S., Dennys Rodriguez was given a warning for driving on the shoulder of the highway then forced to wait for almost 10 minutes as police awaited the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog.
After arriving at the scene, the dog alerted, and a subsequent search of the vehicle found methamphetamine.
The issue before the court was whether it was reasonable to extend Rodriguez’s detention on the side of the road for longer than needed to deal with the initial offense, absent reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer.
The court voted 6-3 in favor of Rodriguez, with the majority holding that the stop went beyond what was reasonable under the law and setting precedent for the entire country.
While “an officer…may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” Ginsburg held, “a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.”
Prior to the decision, the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, following precedent, held that “extension of the stop… for the dog sniff was only a de minimus intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was, therefore, permissible.”
Penning the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, rebuked that contention, holding that detention of a person for any longer than it takes to deal with initial offense, even if only a few minutes, was improper.
“A traffic stop becomes unlawful if prolonged beyond the time in fact needed to complete all traffic-based inquiries,” Ginsburg said.
Police are typically allowed to inspect a driver’s license, ask for registration and proof of insurance and check for any outstanding warrants as all of those actions are geared towards ensuring that vehicles are safely operated, according to Ginsburg.
“A dog sniff, unlike those stock inquiries, lacks the same tie to roadway safety,” said Ginsburg.
The decision doesn’t mean that Rodriguez will necessarily be in the clear though. His case will now be remanded back to the lower courts to consider whether police had a reasonable basis, outside of the traffic stop, to suspect Rodriguez of being engaged in drug activity.
The dissenting opinions in the 6-3 decision came from Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Hopefully, the tide is turning, as potentially indicated by Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s skeptical comments, regarding sacrificing the Fourth Amendment at the alter of law enforcement, made during oral arguments for this case back in January.
“We can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement,” Sotomayor declared. “Particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.”
Although there seems to be a continual erosion of our constitutional rights, this time it appears that the Supreme Court has taken an approach that protects citizens from the arbitrary overreach of government.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-supreme-court-rules/#gcRTWWWOvWZkI5E5.99
We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership
Posted: April 21, 2015 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized
It’s official: John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we don’t own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.
In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”
It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it.
Several manufacturers recently submitted similar comments to the Copyright Office under an inquiry into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. DMCA is a vast 1998 copyright law that (among other things) governs the blurry line between software and hardware. The Copyright Office, after reading the comments and holding a hearing, will decide in July which high-tech devices we can modify, hack, and repair—and decide whether John Deere’s twisted vision of ownership will become a reality.
Over the last two decades, manufacturers have used the DMCA to argue that consumers do not own the software underpinning the products they buy—things like smartphones, computers, coffeemakers, cars, and, yes, even tractors. So, Old MacDonald has a tractor, but he owns a massive barn ornament, because the manufacturer holds the rights to the programming that makes it run.
(This is an important issue for farmers: a neighbor, Kerry Adams, hasn’t been able to fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the diagnostic software he needs. He’s not alone: many farmers are opting for older, computer-free equipment.)
Over the last two decades, manufacturers have used the DMCA to argue that consumers do not own the software that powers the products they buy.
In recent years, some companies have even leveraged the DMCA to stop owners from modifying the programming on those products. This means you can’t strip DRM off smart kitty litter boxes, install custom software on your iPad, or alter the calibration on a tractor’s engine. Not without potentially running afoul of the DMCA.
What does any of that have to do with copyright? Owners, tinkerers, and homebrew “hackers” must copy programming so they can modify it. Product makers don’t like people messing with their stuff, so some manufacturers place digital locks over software. Breaking the lock, making the copy, and changing something could be construed as a violation of copyright law.
And that’s how manufacturers turn tinkerers into “pirates”—even if said “pirates” aren’t circulating illegal copies of anything. Makes sense, right? Yeah, not to me either.
It makes sense to John Deere: The company argues that allowing people to alter the software—even for the purpose of repair—would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.” The pièce de résistance in John Deere’s argument: permitting owners to root around in a tractor’s programming might lead to pirating music through a vehicle’s entertainment system. Because copyright-marauding farmers are very busy and need to multitask by simultaneously copying Taylor Swift’s 1989 and harvesting corn? (I’m guessing, because John Deere’s lawyers never explained why anyone would pirate music on a tractor, only that it could happen.)
Read the rest @ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
Fran points out the indictment with a zillion charges to get people to accept a plea bargain scam-
There is a way to stop that,and it would stop tomorrow if every person charged with some ridiculous list of crimes that don’t even resemble whatever the original “crime” was would just say screw you-seat a jury,I’ll take my chances.
Our “justice” system would grind to a halt .
Cleveland gun edicts violate law, infringe on rights and won’t stop violence
Posted: April 21, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshatteryTags: 2nd amendment, abuse of power, anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy, firearms, Gun Control, Gun Laws, Gun Rights, second amendment
Via David Codrea
Admitting that legislation it passed Monday will not stop violent crime, Cleveland politicians instead came up with excuses for imposing it on citizens anyway, Northeast Ohio Media Group reported. All but one Council member, Zack Reed, voted in favor of the new edicts, which in many areas duplicate state law, but supposedly will allow the city to keep resulting fines.
Whether any such coveted revenues will outweigh further legal costs the city will face is a question taxpayers should be asking their representatives who insisted on reopening an issue presumably already settled in the courts. Ohio Revised Code claims preemption by the state in the field of non-federal firearms regulation, and the matter was supposedly already settled when the City of Cleveland lost against the state in 2010, with the Supreme Court of Ohio “uphold[ing] as Constitutional state law displacing local gun-control ordinances.”
In addition to the duplicate laws and creation of a “gun offender registry,” the Cleveland diktats create several new burdens on law-abiding gun owners, including presuming to dictate reporting requirements for private sales (creating a de facto registry) and to impose storage mandates. Ohio Code declares “a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition,” meaning the city has nothing lawful to say about imposing constraints. The new decree also imposes a stolen gun reporting requirement that would appear to exempt criminals, as requiring them to attest they were in violation of the law prohibiting them from possessing a gun in the first place would also require self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Rather than directly addressing Councilman Reed’s challenge to show how the new edicts would have prevented any of the 25 homicides the city has experienced so far this year, supporters of the legislation offered unsubstantiated platitudes. Safety Director Michael McGrath fell back on the “possibility of saving a life” talking point used to restrict the rights of everyone else while saving nothing and no one. Councilman Michael Polensek even admitted “the bad guys are not turning in their guns. The bad guys are not registering. The kids who want to shoot indiscriminately on the street won’t stop,” and Council President Kevin Kelley “said that the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence” and instead offered bromides about “council’s values and … good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”
In other words, knowing full well what they are imposing will accomplish no reduction in violent crime, and in fact, violate Ohio law, they are nonetheless using the coercive force of the city to mandate citizen compliance — or else. But the desperate to appear effective politicians behind the scam will all get their names in the press and claim bragging rights that they are both “doing something” and showing leadership.
In any legitimate field of endeavor, that would be considered not just malpractice, but outright shameless fraud.
UPDATE: From an email alert received moments after publishing this article:
Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/cleveland-gun-edicts-violate-law-infringe-on-rights-and-won-t-stop-violence?CID=examiner_alerts_article
Yesterday,and this am,I was reading all the stories about Dr Oz,La Times,Ny Times,WaPo,and probably every small town newspaper had a version of the story.
I was reading the comments in this…http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/04/20/the-dr-oz-truthers-who-think-hes-saving-them-from-monsantos-gmos/
The level of scientific illiteracy was astounding-as was the amount of misinformation,disinformation,lies,half-truths,and obfuscation-please educate yourselves about GMO’s
An unbiased,searchable database of published,peer reviewed studies/papers…
More…
In case the United States and Russia engage in nuclear confrontation, the US will be completely wiped off the face of the Earth, editor of Europesolidaire Jean-Paul Baquiast wrote.
Russia and China stand better chances in a possible nuclear war against the US, which would mean complete destruction of the United States’ territory, the French journalist said.
His comments come as the Russian President Vladimir Putin threatens to use his nuclear force against the United States and its allies if NATO moves more forces into the Baltic states or if attempts are made to return Crimea to Ukraine.
That information as well as the Washington’s potential intent to perform a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia’s territory led to a wide Internet discussion whether it is something that might happen or not.
What also fueled these speculations was General Robin Rand’s appointment as head of the US Air Force Global Strike Command.
Knowing the nature of this General, it is possible that he might follow the steps of US General Curtis LeMay, who was meticulously preparing a large nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
And let’s not forget that Russia currently poses a bigger threat than USSR did, and that it is far more dangerous than the union, which collapsed in 1991. According to NATO’s former secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Russia of today is more dangerous than the Soviet Union. The USSR was more predictable than the current leadership.”
The US will be completely destroyed
And so according to Jean-Paul Baquiast, when the US realizes it can’t counter Russian aggression by conventional and non-military means, it will try to destroy it with its armed forces. And in case an armed confrontation indeed happens, the US will no doubt perform a series of preemptive nuclear attacks against Russia.
“Chances of the United States to destroy Russia without consequences for itself are small,” the editor of Europesolidaire said.
And he’s got a point. What do you think Russia will do? Sit, wait and watch? Pretend that the attack didn’t happen?
Read the rest @ http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/04/russia-vs-us-the-world-war-3/
Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars
Posted: April 21, 2015 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedCar Companies Say Home Repairs Are ‘Legally Problematic,’ Seek Copyright Restrictions
Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.
In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.
Allowing them to continue to fix their cars has become “legally problematic,” according to a written statement from the Auto Alliance, the main lobbying arm of automakers.
The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.
Every three years, the office holds hearings on whether certain activities should be exempt from the DMCA’s section 1201, which governs technological measures that protect copyrighted work. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for individual rights in the digital world, has asked the office to ensure that enthusiasts can continue working on cars by providing exemptions that would give them the right to access necessary car components.
Interested parties have until the end of the month to file comments on the proposed rule making, and a final decision is expected by mid-year.
In comments submitted so far, automakers have expressed concern that allowing outsiders to access electronic control units that run critical vehicle functions like steering, throttle inputs and braking “leads to an imbalance by which the negative consequences far outweigh any suggested benefits,” according to the Alliance of Global Automakers. In the worst cases, the organizations said an exemption for enthusiasts “leads to disastrous consequences.”
Complex Software, Increased Risk
Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security. Imagine an amateur makes a coding mistake that causes brakes to fail and a car crash ensues. Furthermore, automakers say these modifications could render cars non-compliant with environmental laws that regulate emissions.
But exemptions from the DMCA don’t give third parties the right to infringe upon existing copyrights. Nor does an exemption mean consumers don’t have to abide by other laws and rules that govern vehicles passed by the National Highway Traffic Administration, Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Patent and Trade Office.
“It’s not a new thing to be able to repair and modify cars,” said Kit Walsh, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It’s actually a new thing to keep people from doing it. There are these specialized agencies that govern what vehicles can lawfully be used for on the road, and they have not seen fit to stop them from repairing cars.”
Aftermarket suppliers and home enthusiasts have been modifying ECUs for years without dire consequences. By tweaking the ECU codes, a process sometimes known as “chipping,” they’ve boosted horsepower, improved fuel efficiency, established performance limits for teen drivers and enhanced countless other features. These innovations have contributed to a “decades-old tradition of mechanical curiosity and self-reliance,” according to the EFF.
Starvin Larry 