new tickets on my xb700

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 17:33

Hey if anyone can shed some light on NJ laws concerning the Electric/E-bike Laws I would greatly appreciate it----I got stopped in August of 2010 and was issued a ticket for no registration---brought my paperwork and the Judge dismissed it---got stopped again by the same cop and he issued me 3 tickets--no reg--no ins--no DL---what are my options now?? and maybe I come under the mobility law--as I have been disabled since 1994---Can anyone help me or refer me to a loophole in NJ concerning the operation of an Electric Bike/E-bike??? The cop told me I am not allowed to operate on any public roadway only on private property......what do I do now????

Topics: 
dismissed ticket in August/2010

Comments

Submitted by sangesf on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 16:43.

You can put forth a campaign to CHANGE the law via the correct procedures. And when that judge's term is up, if I were You, I would start a smear campaign against him.

You got lucky TWICE (actually went on two different occasions) and are STILL complaining.
You can move out of NJ where the laws are more ebike friendly or try to change the law and not by complaining.
You can even go to a local town hall meeting and suggest a local ordinance ALLOWING or DEFINING an ebike as a regular bicycle. You state that you only travel around town, so you could get it done.

Submitted by cyclepete on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 14:00.

Your plight has gotten picked up in "Electric Bike News":

http://electricbikereport.com/electric-bike-news-week-of-4-4-11/

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 16:42.

Well as this past weekend was 'Earth Day Celebration' in OC and the annual 'Doo-Dah Parade' I put in a few calls to the Mayors office and told them that I would be participating in the celebration telling all the tourists of the unfair way I am being treated and that OC is not allowing me to go green----well the Chief of Police is coming over on Monday to review my letter from the MVC and he thinks that I may be right on all counts as the new proposal leaves out the 'or is powered by an electric drive motor that NJ is no longer in direct conflict with the federal definition of "low-speed electric bicycle" in 15 U.S.C. 2085 or "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2. Which is exactly what is stated in the new adopted proposal...So I guess we'll have to see if this works-- ---Sangesf and cyclepete--I did appreciate your words and advice---as I'm not giving up---no way---and this is far from over!!! I will not be silenced!! I don't care if I gotta keep on bitching and complaining---at least some people are listening!! and to me that is a step in the right direction!! I will keep Y'all posted!!

Submitted by Resourceful on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:04.

Well as this past weekend was 'Earth Day Celebration' in OC and the annual 'Doo-Dah Parade' I put in a few calls to the Mayors office and told them that I would be participating in the celebration telling all the tourists of the unfair way I am being treated and that OC is not allowing me to go green----well the Chief of Police is coming over on Monday to review my letter from the MVC and he thinks that I may be right on all counts as the new proposal leaves out the 'or is powered by an electric drive motor that NJ is no longer in direct conflict with the federal definition of "low-speed electric bicycle" in 15 U.S.C. 2085 or "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2. Which is exactly what is stated in the new adopted proposal...So I guess we'll have to see if this works-- ---Sangesf and cyclepete--I did appreciate your words and advice---as I'm not giving up---no way---and this is far from over!!! I will not be silenced!! I don't care if I gotta keep on bitching and complaining---at least some people are listening!! and to me that is a step in the right direction!! I will keep Y'all posted!!

that's one way to get to correct thinking

a nutty way but it needs to be dun

it seems some people and Use that loosely .. more like yesterdays trash

just can't see it's to every buddy benefit to use better technology

as far as I am aware I am the only one to use my E-bike all winter long even when it's so
cold to make ice in 3 seconds

I was waring for some cop to tell me no and take my bike but it never happen'd

if limits are not pushed we would not have what we have
not to say that all we currently have is a good thing ..

Jerseygirl all I have to say is keep pushing back until they back off like they should have
when the answer was starring them in the face all the time but they chose to close up shop
and slim them selves under ground ware they feel so safe

Submitted by Oniondip on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 16:12.

Hi Jersey Girl,
Has there been any news on your situation.

Please let us know what's happening.

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 18:48.

This is the latest----
Dear Senator Van Drew, and Todd J. Alexis, Public Relations Director,
I've already been down this road and spoke with the manager below. I have tried numerous times to register my electric bike. The MVC will not register me as it doesn't meet the MVC's requirements to be classified as a motor vehicle, motorcycle, or motorized bicycle/moped and to register it would be in direct conflict of the 2 laws mentioned below.....this is the problem......Leva and the entire E-Bike world will not allow it.....are you telling me to register it based on looks? Because no other "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bikes" are registered in the state of NJ. My Bike meets all the Federal requirements as defined in HR 727 and "Bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2. So really what is the problem? ...because Prosecutor Don Charles is saying it looks like a moped!!! That is not the issue----I don't care if it looks like a banana.......that shouldn't be up to the opinion of Prosecutor Don Charles or Judge Russel. The Law is the Law.....It meets the requirements stated in the above definitions (MVC and Federal) and then some with loads of safety features that a regular less beefier model E-Bike doesn't have!!

On June 9, 2011 I went to the (shore mall) Cardiff, New Jersey MVC agency---I was NOT able to register my "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bike" as anything-----I spoke with the Manager, Mr. Joe Cafero----he sent my paperwork to Jeffery Pistol, Regulatory Officer of the Legal Department of MVC and also Mike Klewin, of classification---which they are both already aware of my situation and also consider me to be a "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bike" as defined in HR 727 and "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2.....which needs NO registration, NO insurance, and NO drivers license to operate----it is defined as a bicycle and just that according to the MVC and the Federal Laws-----unless you give me a pardon for now until you can change the definition of Title 39 concerning the definition of "motorized bicycle/moped"--or perhaps you could come up with a NEW definition for the "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bike" as this is not fair to me or anybody else that wants to ride a "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bike" in Ocean City, NJ, even though many E-Bikes are being utilized in many other parts of the State of NJ! Although OC City Council has tried to help me they cannot get past these conflicting State vs MVC and Federal definitions. I am being harassed, as far as I'm concerned, by Ocean City or Prosecutor Don Charles who is insisting that I am a "motorized bicycle/moped" and his latest instruction to the Police Dept. is to also ticket me as a motor vehicle because I am not solely propelled by human power---this really is a hum-dinger for NJ to have these conflicting definitions (Title 39) which does not fit the MVC's definition OR the Federal definition of "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bike"as defined in (HR 727 and PL 107-319- SR 1156) ---this most definitely needs to be addressed ASAP, as I don't think I should have to go to court for a third time and is totally unfair for me to lose another summer for this stupid mistake on the part of the State of NJ or MVC---something needs to be done immediately!!----President Bush signed PL107-319 (SR 1156) for a reason---so it would be cut, dry, and clear for the State to make a definition for the "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle/E-Bike" that would be based on his signing of this Federal Law.......thanking you in advance for your time and consideration concerning this very important matter.
I am going to utilize my E-Bike from now on as this has really gone on long enough.......Just ask Jeff for a copy of the proposal comments and responses---please---so you can see the MVC and the Federal laws state that I am not violating any laws and Prosecutor Don Charles and the State of NJ's Title 39 definition is also wrong and please just allow me to ride like everyone else in NJ....please lets get this resolved as soon as possible.....this is so unfair to me and I am suffering because of an oversight made on the part of the State of NJ for this apparent mistake. It's just so ridiculous to be fighting this fight at all because the MVC, State, and Federal Laws can't be on the same page when making the laws. Thank you so much for all you've done. I greatly appreciate it but am sorry to say I need more help. Why should I be made to register my E-Bike if no other E-Bikes will be forced to register their E-Bikes?.......If I meet all the requirements to not be registered don't make a special registration for me as that's the whole reason I bought the thing so I could get away cheap......and Go Green.....my license is suspended for non-payment of surcharges......I'm disabled, on SSI, and raising a child on a fixed income....I was looking for an alternative cheap form of transportation.......this was it since 2009 until I moved closer to the center of town. My kid hasn't even joined any activities since all this has been going on. He used to play baseball and I'd ride him down to 34th street when we lived at 53rd and Bay.....never had a problem.....this really has been a nightmare for me all the way around.......I'm grateful for everything but need this to be fixed. Again, thank you.
Denise Baj
From: "Van Drew, Sen. D.O."
To: sydney711 [at] comcast.net
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 3:27:02 PM
Subject: FW: Denise Baj Electric Bicycle Issue

Hello Denise,

This is what was sent to our office Friday while I was out of the office. We are working on trying to resolve this with the Commissioner of the MVC. We will notify you as soon as we can get any updated information.

Todd J. Alexis, Public Relations Director

Senator Jeff Van Drew

Assemblyman Nelson Albano

Assemblyman Matthew Milam

21 N. Main St.

Cape May Court House, NJ 08210

Tel: 609-465-0700

Fax: 609-465-4578

From: Jeffrey Pistol [Jeffrey.Pistol [at] dot.state.nj.us]">mailto:Jeffrey.Pistol [at] dot.state.nj.us]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Van Drew, Sen. D.O.
Subject: Denise Baj Electric Bicycle Issue

The Honorable Senator Van Drew:

I have been speaking with Todd from your office and he indicated that you wanted to know if the City of Ocean City has the authority to require Denise Baj to register her electric bicycle with the Motor Vehicle Commission. I checked with the Attorney General's office and was told that the City does not have the authority to require Denise Baj to register her electric bicycle with the Motor Vehicle Commission but they do have the authority to require Ms. Baj to come to the MVC for a determination as to whether the electric bicycle can be registered.

The MVC has three specialty inspection sites which can, among other duties, inspect vehicles to make determinations as to how the vehicles shall be classified, whether or not they shall be registered, and whether or not they can be allowed to operate on the public roadways. The closest MVC specialty inspection site to Ms. Baj is in Winslow and the phone number for that site is 609-567-0190.

Please contact me if you need any additional information about this matter.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.

Jeffrey T. Pistol

Regulatory Officer

Regulatory & Legislative Affairs

New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission

PO Box 162

Trenton, NJ 08666-0162

609-777-1407

Submitted by sangesf on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 00:30.

I'm telling you (and have told you a million times) that the federal law has NOTHING to do with state's laws concerning vehicles and their (allowed or not allowed) usage on public roads. (Specifically any non-federally funded road - the only federally funded roads are those you can't use a bicycle on anyways (i.e. Turnpikes/Parkways)).
You can speak with any and all DMV people and any or all Senators, etc..
All your doing is going to be ruining it for those who DO hold licenses and CAN ride electric bikes (MOPEDS - by NJ statute definition) and I'll explain why...

The same (not exactly) KIND of issue is being discussed in Florida concerning gas powered bicycles..
The DMV in Florida states you can NOT LEGALLY register a gas powered bicycle. However, there is a statute that describes a moped (gas powered bicycle). Now that leads to a conundrum... Florida DMV says you HAVE to register a moped for use on public roads (as well as the need for a DL to operate one), but won't let you register a gas powered bicycle (moped by statute definition).
So what did someone do? They continually hounded the DMV and state's AG for clarification...
Guess what happened... They all finally agreed that a gas powered bike by definition is a moped and that since the DMV won't allow you to register it (because of required safety equipment).... It becomes ILLEGAL to even operate one on public roads, whether or not you have a DL.

I have a feeling the same thing is going to happen in NJ.. If you push this supposed "grey area" of the law, you will find that it will be MUCH easier for them to outlaw them completely then to try to "rectify" the situation to suit your particular needs.
Here's the thing... Although you are a bit upset because the law is telling you the main thing is that the "electric bicycle" you are using LOOKS like a moped, (right or wrong) that was the problem in the first place... IF you had an electric bicycle that LOOKED like a regular bicycle AND you were pedaling at the time the police saw you, this would have probably NOT have happened to you and you would have not had all these problems...
Now (and here's the kicker..). You have admitted to not being able to pedal at all.. If you can not pedal at all, you are not using the electric bicycle as a bicycle, you are using it AS a scooter/moped type vehicle.
Now, just to add a bit of reality here for you.. You state that the federal law has the "intention" to regulate an electric bicycle as a regular bicycle, now get this...
The INTENTION of an "electric bicycle" is to use the motor as an ASSIST, and NOT the primary mode of propulsion, which MEANS the intention is to have the motor assist you AS you pedal (called PAS or Pedal Assist System). Some states and other countries REQUIRE a PAS system to be installed in order for an electric bicycle to be allowed for use on public roads... Now here's the interesting part... Should NJ add that stipulation (and realize that it would NOT (as you would put it) "conflict with federal law") it would not help you, since you can't pedal anyways...

My suggestion to you, is again, to sell your vehicle and have your doctor write a letter stating that you require the use of a "personal mobility device".. They have (by law) the ability to travel as fast as an electric bicycle and have an even more comfortable seat than an electric bike, have farther range, storage capabilities, etc, etc. You would NEVER be "harassed" by law enforcement because PMDs are covered by federal ADA (American Disability Act) laws that ARE accepted by EVERY state.

Submitted by cyclepete on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 06:58.

Sangesf - you are mostly right but it needs some clarification

First - this is a very important clarification: there is no federal law making electric bicycles be defined as bicycles. What Jersey Girl keeps referring to is a Consumer Product and Safety Commission (CPSC) REGULATION passed by the federal government in 2002 saying that sales of ebikes are to be regulated as consumer products by the CPSC and defining what safety equipment is needed on ebikes. It basically says that for the purpose of required safety equipment and performance, low-power ebikes are treated as bicycles. It has nothing to do as to whether you can ride the ebike on federal or state funded roads (that is determined by federal and state vehicle laws) and has no impact whatsoever on state motor vehicle legislation (although I do think their regulation makes a good template for the states, and all states should consider defining these ebikes as bicycles). The CPSC requires that for an ebike to be considered a bicycle that it have two operable pedals, a maximum motor power of 750w and can go no faster than 20mph when powered by the electric motor without pedal assist.

Here is the discussion on this from a law journal:
Federal Law
At the Federal level, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) relegated defining what an e-bike is to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC defines a low-speed electric bicycle as:

"... a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph. (Public Law No. 107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776 (2002))"

See H.R. 727: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.727:

The text of the bill is at: http://www.waytogocycles.com/news/5/U.S.-Federal-Regulations-for-Electric-Bicycles-H.R.-727.html

What confuses people is this statement in the bill:
‘‘(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement
with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such
State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law
or requirements referred to in subsection (a).’’.

They are NOT referring to states' laws regarding registering or using ebikes on the road. They are referring to safety standards. Unfortunately, this provision makes it almost impossible to every get an ebike certified as a moped in NJ, as moped safety requirements in NJ are different from bicycles.

Now if someone can convince New Jersey that this regulation actually overrides our motor vehicle laws, I would be perfectly happy with that, but it is legally not true.

-----------------------------

Second - New Jersey modified their moped law to include all ebikes. I think 2008. See http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/MotorizedBicycle.htm
However, they did not set up a way to get ebikes on the approved list for mopeds by the Motor Vehicle Services, so you currently cannot register an ebike in NJ and they are all illegal for street use.

Jersey Girl referred to an article written by a member of "New Jersey Walks and Bikes" by Dr. Allen-Munley, saying the federal law overrode the state law. I talked to the author of that article and she wasn't clear that she understood that she based her article on a CPSC regulation, not a federal law.

Submitted by sangesf on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:23.

Cyclepete, exactly my point... Like I said, this all stems from a lack of understanding about HR727. Every person that lives in a state that either outlaws Ebikes all together or requires a DL to ride one, tries to use HR727 as a defense.
It's simple...
If you live in a state that does not allow the use of Ebikes, then DON'T USE THEM!
If you live in a state that requires a DL, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ONE.
If you've lost your license, don't try to skirt around the laws.
My main point is that the OP thought she found a way to get away with not having a DL after it got suspended (for drunk driving, if I recall correctly).
The OP also bought the most scooterish looking Ebike available out there.
The OP also says she never pedals the Ebike and uses it just like a scooter (it even has a deck to put her feet on).
Very easily, the OP could have bought a mobility scooter, but (my guess is that) it would not look "cool" and would make her feel like an "old lady" or something to that effect.

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 13:32.

Hello----I wasn't trying to skirt the law----yes I'm disabled---yes I couldn't afford a car or all the other things that go with the car---insurance-registration--maintenance-----yes I did my classes and could get my DL right now and for the last 5 years---but I'm on a tight fixed income---excuse me but u seem to keep bringing that up-----I wanted something that could carry my groceries and my kid to soccer and baseball practice.....yes I was trying to get away CHEAP----what part of that don't you understand.....they sell E-Bikes right in the next town over and they are not illegal in the state of NJ----excuse me but I don't want to ride in a wheelchair like device and that would be a choice I thought----I thought I was well within my rights as the Bike meets all the requirements....I guess I was just a dumb b*tch who wanted to get around and get my kid around........sorry for my shortcomings.....can ya cut me a break already???
The MVC is stating plain and simple that they are not in conflict of the federal and bicycle law. If requested, the MVC regulatory officer, Jeffery Pistol, 609-777-1407--would more than likely send you a copy of the "comments and responses" portion of the amendment/proposal (passed February 8, 2011) stating "that the State and MVC overlooked HR 727 (codified 15 U.S.C. 2085)" and "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2"
The problem is the looks and excuse me but if it meets the above Federal and "bicycle" Requirements----that is what the law is.....The MVC is the one who won't register b/c they want to be on the same page as Leva and the rest of the E-Bike world----following the Fed's -------well make up your mind is all I'm saying---so that's why I'm taking it to the limit b/c if the feds say it's a safe bike than who the hell gives the town Prosecutor the right to define how they wanna define---so what next---just like them trying to register regular bicycles too--that lasted for all of 2 days. Plus I do have loads of safety features that less beefier models DON'T have. It shouldn't be about what it looks like---I thought I was within my rights and have been told since before I purchased it, that it was legal and that I didn't need any of the reg, ins, and DL to operate-----so yeah I got the beefier model b/c maybe I got a big fat ass....is that any reason to single me out.....once it meets the requirements that should be it---one law for everybody or shit or get off the pot----it a travesty of justice and a joke that the people that are running our country and making the laws, can't even be on the same page!! But b/c I made a mistake over 5 years ago, you want to nail me to the cross and "skirt" the real issues!!
Just got off the phone with the Senator's PR guy----Todd---he said Van Drew is in Trenton until Thursday---(budget vote) and has a conference with MVC director and now in light of Jeff's recent email he doesn't think that will take place b/c the MVC is giving us the go ahead saying if it's inspected or tried to register it the MVC will determine if it is registrable---which I've already done... so that's the reason he won't have that conference. So hopefully this will be settled by the time the holiday is over---he said he'll call me on Friday or Tuesday at the latest....that's cool b/c I get outta this resort town on the holidays if I can, b/c it's a madhouse here....lol
Happy July the 4th everyone!!! ---don't forget what our forefathers fought for!!!! I'm still fighting the fight!!!!!

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 13:43.

And in the Letter of comments and responses that I spoke of in earlier posts --there are NOT ILLEGAL TO OPERATE in the State of NJ and are considered a "Bicycle" as defined in the bicycle law stated earlier also!!!

From: Jeffrey Pistol [Jeffrey.Pistol [at] dot.state.nj.us]">mailto:Jeffrey.Pistol [at] dot.state.nj.us]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Van Drew, Sen. D.O.
Subject: Denise Baj Electric Bicycle Issue

The Honorable Senator Van Drew:

I have been speaking with Todd from your office and he indicated that you wanted to know if the City of Ocean City has the authority to require Denise Baj to register her electric bicycle with the Motor Vehicle Commission. I checked with the Attorney General's office and was told that the City does not have the authority to require Denise Baj to register her electric bicycle with the Motor Vehicle Commission but they do have the authority to require Ms. Baj to come to the MVC for a determination as to whether the electric bicycle can be registered.

The MVC has three specialty inspection sites which can, among other duties, inspect vehicles to make determinations as to how the vehicles shall be classified, whether or not they shall be registered, and whether or not they can be allowed to operate on the public roadways. The closest MVC specialty inspection site to Ms. Baj is in Winslow and the phone number for that site is 609-567-0190.

Please contact me if you need any additional information about this matter.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.

Jeffrey T. Pistol
Regulatory Officer
Regulatory & Legislative Affairs
New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission
PO Box 162
Trenton, NJ 08666-0162
609-777-1407

Submitted by cyclepete on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 15:37.

All I can do is point out state law as written. The most up-to-date version defines all electric bicycles as "mopeds". Read the Motor vehcicle definition of moped here:
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/MotorizedBicycle.htm

originally ebikes did not fit into the definition. The inclusion of ebikes into the moped definition happened a few years ago by state legislation. I pointed out the exact bill earlier.

If there was a more recent change to remove mopeds from this definition, I haven't seen it.

HR 727 regards the federal regulations for the manufacturing and sale of ebikes. It is not about whether a state must allow them on the roads as bicycles. The cost impact statement of the law makes this very clear.

That is the law. I wish you the best of luck in your situation. It is even possible that local officials will misinterprete the law to your benefit, but the law is not on your ( or my) side on this issue. I have been working to get it changed.

I will agree that local police seem to be going out of there way to harass you. A woman where I work here in South Jersey rides the same vehicle as yours to work in warm weather. She's been doing it for three years and has never been pulled over. Normally the police are too busy with other issues just to pull someone over to see if their moped is properly registered and so on. Mopeds tend to fly under the radar unless they see you without a helmet or there is an accident.

Submitted by sangesf on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 15:57.

Until, and I repeat, UNTIL there is a LAW CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS for ALL persons to see, LEGALLY SPEAKING, ALL EBIKES ARE ILLEGAL FOR USE ON NJ ROADS.
SIMPLE AS THAT!

There can be as much conjecture about the laws as you want, anecdotal evidence from anyone you want to show, supposed laws that SHOULD be on the books, CONFLICTING views between the DMV and the State Legislature and anything else you an think of, but UNTIL that time, they are still TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL!

Example....
In Florida, back in 2002, the Attorney General of the state gave an "opinion" (e.g his/her legal response) EXACTLY regarding the same type of issue, but in regards to gas bikes.
In one section of the law, it says a moped (gas bike) is NOT a "motor vehicle" (in terms of registration) but in ANOTHER section it does (in regards to DL requirements). The EXACT same thing as the electric bike laws in NJ....
And as I have said previously.. The Attorney General said, that UNTIL (and realize it's been NINE years since and NOTHING has changed) both sides of the "fence" (legislature and DMV) get together and decide how to register and to decide if a DL is required, they are illegal for use on public roads.

Show a CURRENT NJ law (NOT FEDERAL, because there is NONE!) that states an Electric Bike is considered a regular bicycle. (not conjecture, not an anecdote, not a "it's almost there" thing) and you're free and clear.

MOST IMPORTANTLY WHEN you got ticketed, because it's the timing of the law that matters, you were riding an illegal unregistered moped on a suspended license. (it doesn't matter (legally) whether you CAN OR NOT register it, that is the law of the time. Hence why they say, it's illegal for use on public roads, [it needs to be registered for use, but they won't let register it]).
Give it up... (Back when you were ticketed the above applies/applied, be thankful you didn't get into any real trouble, you got off EASY!)

You know you can get a mobility scooter that CAN do EVERYTHING your current vehicle does. (You just DON'T WANT to, because of the stereotype of an "old, crippled lady") I'm telling you, the only thing you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot, trying to "force" the legislature to see it "your way" when all you're going to accomplish, is to make them put even stricter legislation on electric bikes and their usage.

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 18:49.

Then why are they selling them here without telling the consumer that they cannot be operated on the roads of NJ----b/c there is no law banning them on NJ roadways...in fact there is one ordinance in LBI or somewhere up there banning them being operated on state road 68 or 72 I think....I know it is a divided highway median---I can't remember exactly where but I know I read it somewhere---that is the only place they are banned for operation in the state of NJ---they have that ordinance b/c they did a traffic study!!! What about that????

http://e-bikekit.com/company/company/news-events.html
above is the is the main link showing like 4 different videos promoting E-Bikes in New Jersey---so like I said before---the MVC is saying they are not illegal and they are a bicycle---this is good for us as it is bringing attention to the issues and MVC is now behind us on this----this is a good move in the right direction!!! call the senator, call your senator, lets get this out in the open or shit or get off the pot!! I'm just saying its about time the state addresses this on their level now!!! I was told directly from MVC Jeff Pistol that E-Bikes are NOT BANNED in this state but your town can have an ordinance against them but they have to do a traffic study, accident study, the whole nine!!

http://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/jersey%20city sell them here and in Northfield,NJ

http://www.njherald.com/story/news/08Local-briefs2011-04-07T21-27-07 they are giving away a 2300.00 E-Bike here

http://206.130.114.227/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=ACC&Category_Code=4 sell them here too

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 20:15.

MVC says that this puts them no longer in direct conflict with HR 727 and "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2 then it goes on to all the other stuff that was readopted from the original proposal back in Oct 2010

TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Motorized Bicycles
Readoption with Amendment: N.J.A.C. 13:25
Proposed: October 4,2010 al42 N.J.R. 231a@).
Adopted: February 8, 2011 by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Board,
Raymond P. Martinez, Chair.
Filed:
Authority: N.J.S.A. 39'2-3,39:3-10a, 39:4-14.3,39:4-14.3a et seq. and 39:5-30.
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses:
COMMENT: Sidney Kuropchak, Executive Director of the Light Electric Vehicle
Association (LEVA) indicated that Federal law (HR727') states that an electrically driven
bicycle is considered a "bicycle" and the bicycle laws apply if the electrically driven
bicycle has functional pedals, a less than 750 watt motor and has a maximum speed
capability of less than 20 miles per hour. He asked if LEVA could organize a
demonstration of low-speed electric bicycles to the Motor Vehicle Commission before
the Motor Vehicle Commission amends the language in the motorized,bicycle rules.
RESPONSE: H.R.727 which was enacted as 15 U.S.C. 2085 does, indeed, state
"...the term 'low-speed electric bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully
operable maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph." Sec.

page 2

38.(b). ln Sec. 38.(d), it states, "This section shall supercede any State law or
requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law
or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in
subsection (a)." There is no need to demonstrate low-speed electric bicycles to the
Motor Vehicle Commission. The Motor Vehicle Commission is not going to adopt the
amended "motorized bicycle" definition which specifically references electric drive
motors; the existing definition will be readopted without change.
COMMENT: Mr. Kuropchak forwarded a comment from Larry Pizzi, a LEVA board
member and the president of Currie Technologies. Mr. Pizzi stated that he believes
"...that NJ is attempting to redefine the Federal definition of a "Low Speed Electric
Bicycle" exactly the same way that it defines a "Motorized Bicycle" under the NJ Moped
law (50cc. 1 .5 brake HP,25 mph max speed) by adding the phrase "or is powered by an
electric drive motor, in an attempt to categorize low-speed electric bikes and motor
vehicles. This is either an oversight of the Federal law in HR727 or a misunderstanding
about low-speed electric bikes." Mr. Pizzi suggested requesting permission for the
LEVA to have an opportunity to demonstrate low-speed electric bicycles to the New
Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.
RESPONSE: The Motor Vehicle Commission attempted to conform the regulatory
definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.A.C. 13:25-1.1 with the statutory definition of
"motorized bicycle" in N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 to be consistent. The definition of "motorized
bicycle" in N.J.S.A 39:1-1 was amended on July 19, 2005, as part of a law that
established definitions for "motorized scooters," "motorized skateboards", and
"motorized wheelchairs," and amended the definition of "motorcycles." .The New Jersey

page 3
Legislature and the Motor Vehicle Commission both apparently overlooked H.R. 727
which is codified at 15 USC 2085.)
COMMENT: Mr. Kuropchak also fonrvarded a comment from Eric Pearlman, General
Manager, North America, Ultra Motor. Mr. Pearlman indicated that he has spoken with
some independent bike shop owners in New Jersey who have expanded their sales
product line to include electric bikes. lf additional requirements are imposed on electric
bike drivers, "the electric bike will go the way of the moped in NJ, almost non-existent.
ln addition, traditional Bikes travel much faster than our e-bikes on pedal power alone,
so it cannot be just a decision based on safety. Bottom-line, this law will cripple the
entrepreneur or lndependent Bike shop at a time when they need support the most."
Mr. Pearlman says that Ultra Motor plans to open a satellite office and distribution
center in New Jersey. He believes that it will encourage other green businesses to
ejther open in New Jersey. The imposition of additional requirements on electric bike
riders may force Ultra Motor to reconsider locating facilities here and becoming a New
Jersey employer.
RESPONSE: The Motor Vehicle Commission is withdrawing the proposed
amendment to the definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.A.C. 13:25-1.1 and is
readopting the motorized bicycle rules without change. The definition of "motorized
bicycle" will remain the same as it is in the existing rule.
COMMENT: Larry Pizzi, President, Currie Acquisitions LLC, dlbla Currie Technologies,
also sent a separate letter with his comments. He indicated, in relevant part:
"First and foremost, I believe that the state's Motorized Bicycle regulations were created
and pertain to "Mopeds", which are two wheeled, gasoline powered motor vehicles

page 4
(50cc, 1.5 brake horsepower,25 mph max speed) that use pedals to start the engine,
which became popular very briefly, during the 1970's. Because, in my opinion, Low-
Speed Electric Bicycles, which are defined by Federal law HR 727 (copy attached for
your reference), bear little or no similarities to Mopeds, they should not be classified
with the same or similar restrictive regulations.
ln fact, electric bicycles that meet the guidelines as defined in section 38(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act are much more similar to a conventional bicycle then (sic)
any motor vehicle. That is precisely why the Federal government clearly stated that
"low-speed electric bicycles shall not be considered a motor vehicle as defined by
section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code." Section 38 of the CPSA in section (d)
goes on to read "This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect
to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more
stringent then (sic) the federal law or requirements referred to in section (a)."
RESPONSE: The commenter is correct that these rules were originally intended to
cover mopeds. Again, the Motor Vehicle Commission did not intend to substantially
change the scope or reach of these rules in this readoption. lt merely intended to
"conform" the definition of "motorized bicycle" to comply with the New Jersey statutory
definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.S.A. 39:1-1. Since adopting the statutory
definition of "motorized bicycle" would violate federal law, specifically 15 USC 2085, the
Motor Vehicle Commission is not adopting the proposed amended definition of
"motorized bicycle" which would have added the words, "or is powered by an electric
drive motor'' to the definition. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Commission is leaving the
definition of "motorized bicycle" unchanged from how it appears in the existing rule.

page 5

Federal Standards Statement
Now that the reference to electric motors has been deleted from the state definition
of "motorized bicycle," the state regulatory -definition of "motorized bicycle" is no longer
in direct conflict with the federal definition of "low-speed electric bicycle" in 15 U.S.C.
2085 or "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2.
N.J.A.C. 13:25-2.1 requires that as a prerequisite to the issuance of motorized
bicycle learner's permits, applicants therefor must submit proof to the Commission that
the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under Federal law in the
manner set forth in N.J.A.C.13:21-8.2(a), (b) and (c). N.J.A.C. 13:25-3.1(b) imposes
the same requirement as a prerequisite to the issuance of motorized bicycle licenses to
applicants therefor. The rules, which are reflective of the public policy of this State
embodied in P.L. 1993, c.34, do not impose a standard or requirement that exceeds the
standards or requirements imposed by Federal law.
N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.3, which provides that protective helmets used by the operators
of motorized bicycles must have a reflectorized surface on both sides or have securely
affixed thereto reflectorized material on both the left and right side of the helmet, sets
forth a requirement that exceeds the standards for motorcycle helmets set forth in 49
CFR 5571.218. The Federal motorcycle helmet standards have been made applicable
to helmets used by motorized bicycle operators pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.2, but the
Federal standard does not contain the reflectorization requirement set forth in N.J.A.C.
13:25-9.3. However, N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.3 also requires the protective helmets used by
motorized bicycle operators to be in compliance with N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7, a New Jersey
statute pertaining to motorcycle helmets that predates the adoption of the

page 6

aforementioned Federal standard and that contains a reflectorization requirement.
Although the New Jersey Legislature has amended N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7 three times since
the adoption of 49 CFR 5571.218, it has chosen not to delete the reflectorization
provision contained in the statute. Accordingly, the Commission has retained the
reflectorization requirement for protective helmets set forth in N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.3
because, although the cost to motorized bicycle operators to reflectorize a protective
helmet is relatively modest (it may be accomplished by means of reflective tape), the
use of reflectorization may prevent accidents by assisting other motorists in the
identification of motorized bicycle operators during nighttime hours. The Commission
discerns no valid basis upon which to impose less stringent protective helmet standards
on operators of motorized bicycles.
N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.2, 9.4 and 9.5 each require compliance with the Federal
motorcycle helmet standards set forth in 49 CFR 5571.218, but do not impose a
standard that exceeds the Federal standards.
A Federal standards analysis is not required for the remainder of the rules in
N.J.A.C. 13:25 that are proposed for readoption and amendment because the subject
matter of said rules is authorized under State law and is not subject to Federal
requirements or standards.
Full text of the adopted amendment follows:
SUBCHAPTERl. DEFINITIONS
13:25-1.1 Definitions
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following
meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

page 7
the part in the [] is what was removed

"Motorized bicycle" means a pedal bicycle having a helper motor characterized in
that either the maximum piston displacement is less than 50 c.c. or said motor is rated
at no more than 1.5 brake horsepower [or is powered by an electric drive motor] and
said bicycle is capable of a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour on a flat
surface.

Submitted by sangesf on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 23:07.

You obviously did NOT read that for what it meant..
You DO know, that what you just showed was the NJ DMV refusing to change the definition of a motorized bicycle for title 39 1-1.?!?
All that document is, is the owners/VPs of electric bicycle manufacturing companies basically begging NJ to change the rules, so they could sell their product legally in NJ, which the DMV says, (paraphrased) "Sure you can sell them in NJ, but that does NOT change what we will categorize them and won't necessarily make them legal to be used on public roads."
(Every response in that document was the NJDMV saying they will not change the definition of a motorized bike in title 39 1-1. (That does NOT stop, the manufacturers from selling them, nor does it stop people from using them on private property, which in turn makes NJ compliant with the HR727 CPSC requirements).

So you just proved what I've been saying all along.

You have shown no change in NJ law concerning usage of electric bikes (mopeds by NJ definition) on public roads.

End of line.

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 23:24.

I thought this part, as I was also told by MVC that this is a good thing for the e-bike.

Federal Standards Statement
Now that the reference to electric motors has been deleted from the state definition
of "motorized bicycle," the state regulatory -definition of "motorized bicycle" is no longer
in direct conflict with the federal definition of "low-speed electric bicycle" in 15 U.S.C.
2085 or "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2.

According to the MVC they did not want to be in conflict with these 2 laws and would not conform to the State's definition and that "they and the state overlooked HR 727 in 15 U.S.C. 2085 and "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2
That part is important---as they will not register the e-bike as they consider it to be a bicycle and not a "motorized bicycle/moped"

That is exactly what Jeff told me from the MVC that the MVC wanted to be on the same page as the Fed laws and Bicycle laws----and he told me point blank that E-Bikes are permitted to be on the road as long as the town doesn't have an ordinance banning them. Which no town in NJ has one --only that ban on 68 or 72 that I mentioned earlier.

The MVC wants the State to catch up with the times and change their definition to be on their page as they are standing on the Fed def--of HR 727 and "bicycle" 16 C.F.R. 1512.2.
This is a good thing as they took the comments and adjusted accordingly.....and they want the State of NJ to follow.....that's what the MVC ppl are saying----I actually thought that was a step in the right direction.....I'll keep ya's posted but refuse to give up---I'm not trying to open up a can of worms but get a true definition so that Joe Blow in the next town can ride, as I should be able to ride, as Tom, Dick or Harry in the next town over is allowed to ride.....it should be one law for all!!
This ain't Nazi USA....or is it???

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 19:48.

Did u not read this one.....that's why he's canceling his meeting with MVC----they already gave him his answer---and I did it

The Honorable Senator Van Drew:

I have been speaking with Todd from your office and he indicated that you wanted to know if the City of Ocean City has the authority to require jerseygirl to register her electric bicycle with the Motor Vehicle Commission. I checked with the Attorney General's office and was told that the City does not have the authority to require jerseygirl to register her electric bicycle with the Motor Vehicle Commission but they do have the authority to require jerseygirl to come to the MVC for a determination as to whether the electric bicycle can be registered.
===============================================================================================================================================
THIS PART IS SAYING THAT HE GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE jerseygirl TO REGISTER HER ELECTRIC BICYCLE WITH THE MVC ---AND I'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE MVC FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE ELECTRIC BICYCLE CAN BE REGISTERED----THAT IS A GOOD THING----is it not??
===============================================================================================================================================

The MVC has three specialty inspection sites which can, among other duties, inspect vehicles to make determinations as to how the vehicles shall be classified, whether or not they shall be registered, and whether or not they can be allowed to operate on the public roadways. The closest MVC specialty inspection site to jerseygirl is in Winslow and the phone number for that site is 609-567-0190.
Please contact me if you need any additional information about this matter.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.
Jeffrey T. Pistol
Regulatory Officer
609-777-1407

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 23:45.

And like I said earlier----the MVC says that the e-bike is NOT illegal to be operated in the State of NJ....on the roadways of under 45mph and only are banned if your town or municipality has a ordinance prohibiting them....so who is right----that's what I'm trying to establish...I will post more on Friday or Tuesday---bye for now!!! ciao

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 23:58.

At least they are saying SOMETHING about the State and MVC overlooking these laws!!!

RESPONSE: The Motor Vehicle Commission attempted to conform the regulatory
definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.A.C. 13:25-1.1 with the statutory definition of
"motorized bicycle" in N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 to be consistent. The definition of "motorized
bicycle" in N.J.S.A 39:1-1 was amended on July 19, 2005, as part of a law that
established definitions for "motorized scooters," "motorized skateboards", and
"motorized wheelchairs," and amended the definition of "motorcycles." The New Jersey
Legislature and the Motor Vehicle Commission both apparently overlooked H.R. 727
which is codified at 15 USC 2085 and "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2

I will continue to fight!!!

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 00:02.

Sangesf---"You DO know, that what you just showed was the NJ DMV refusing to change the definition of a motorized bicycle for title 39 1-1.?!?"

That's wrong ---the MVC tried but refused to conform to the State of NJ's definition of Title 39

Submitted by sangesf on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 01:28.

You are still not getting it.

You still have not shown a past or current NJ law that says an electric bicycle is defined as a regular bicycle. There is none and has not been one. So, currently (and in the past) you were riding a moped without a valid license. No matter what you do currently to have that changed, it does not change the aforementioned fact.

In regards to the DMV not wanting to register your Ebike, re-read what I wrote about the Florida issue with gas powered bikes to see how long it takes (and is still taking) for such change to happen, as well as, Florida's position on bikes not being able to be registered and whether they are legal to be used on public roads.

Also note that the MOMENT NJ law actually has a definition "on the books" that states an electric bicycle (with specific parameters) is to be considered a regular bicycle, you will be free to ride yours...
They MAY decide that the ONLY way for it to be still considered a "regular" bicycle is to have the stipulation that it is a PAS type system and HAS to be pedaled for the motor to assist. (i.e. No throttle allowed). That would help differentiate between a "self-propelled" moped and an electric bicycle.

Submitted by sangesf on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 13:42.

What ever happened with this?

Submitted by secretarts on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 09:26.

While I am in south Florida, I have been in New Jersey in the last few years for visits, and I have to say it is the most unfriendly to bicycle/electric bicycle types I have run into. I have the Xtreme XB420 three wheel scooter, which is considered by most to be a mobility scooter and it can run about 22 mph on a flat area, but it is only a single rider device and without major work would not being able to care two. Now Jerseygirl's post states she is trying to use this for her and her son to go around. I have to say I would think more of you would be supportive than critisizing. No matter what the localized law, I have to think there has to be a point in which we all realize that things have changed in how the law has to be looked at and we should be writing to the New Jersey law makers and being this "lobby movement" for each other. this is called grass roots movements. But that is My opinion. Still more to the point there are other three wheel scooter type electric bikes out there for two riders but again they cost a great deal more than the xb700, and still there is the fact it might not be available in her area.

Now, why not, give some support to another green/electric sister? No she might not win her case here but does any one remember Rosa Parks and the civil rights protest? We are all for one reason or another effected by this type of law. And we need to show the others like us, that we will help not hurt their problem.

Submitted by sangesf on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 10:42.

You are surely not comparing Rosa Parks/civil rights issues with an ex addict (who been to jail) who got a DUI, drove drunk, had an accident hurt her back, and is trying to skirt around NJ's current moped law by riding an electric bike (That LOOKS AND RIDES like a scooter)?!?!?

Please tell me you're not!
She could EASILY get a doctors notation stating that she has back problems and CAN get a mobility scooter (you see the ads all the time, where you can get one for little or no cost) and ride that around...

But NO... She wanted to ride something that didn't make her feel like an "old lady"...
As it stands NJ does not have "electric bicycle laws"... And as the OP hasn't responded to this thread in over 6 months, you could theorize that she has not won anything yet..

It takes FOREVER to get a law passed (or amended)..
Jerseygurl, VERY easily, could sell the bike and use that money to get something that law enforcement would never dream to bother her on.
(Mobility Scooter)

OR get her license back...

We all have to pay for the mistakes we've made. Plain and simple.

I'm in South Florida too.. I WAS living in NJ. NJ law enforcement will never let her get away with what she is trying to get away with..

Simple fact, if you don't like the law, try to get it changed. If you can't, then move to another state that has laws you agree with (and conform to).

It may sound harsh or rude, but I have no sympathy for people with DUIs and the like....

I don't have a license and it took me great pains to get my electric bicycle (with an 80mile range!) to conform with FL law (max speed of 20mph, pedals, etc)...
The OP doesn't have that luxury to be living here in Florida where the e-bike laws are very friendly. But she has many choices.. She just seems to what it her way and forget everyone else's wants.

P.S. The reason for the NJ laws being what they are today, is because back in the late 70's / early 80's all the DUI people realized that mopeds didn't require a license, so they used that to get around the law.. Well, guess what? NJ law makers decided to make riding a moped require a license (after quite a few accidents with people on mopeds while drunk) and hence NJ is the way it is..

The OP got lucky by not getting into trouble BOTH times she went to court.. She might not be so lucky next time.

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 13:33.

So sorry to everyone for not getting back to you's quicker......well since the summer and talking to the gov himself, I have Senator Van Drew drafting a Bill to change Title 39 to reflect the MVC and Federal Definitions to coincide with their laws and definitions pertaining to the "Low-Speed Electric Bicycle". The Director of the MVC is wording the Doc to reflect their stance since the proposal back in Feb 2011. Their stand is in total agreement with/pertaining to HR-727 and PL 107-319. In fact they may even name the bill after me.....that would be so cool!!!! So yay for NJ for finally stepping up to the plate.....it goes before legislature in about a month and 1/2 ---
I also have been riding my xb-700 all around town (not lately b/c of weather) since early last July and have been sitting at the stop light right next to a cop and nobody has issued me a ticket as of this date. And I've seen at least 50 or more since I started riding so someone must have told the 5/0 to back off......I even rode to the police station to pick up a helmet from the community program with the ocpd....they never said a word......I'm very happy and enjoy the ride when it's nice.... usually abt 2 to 3 times a week on a short trip to the grocery store and back. I do believe there are other states that are coming on board with this and I really don't think it's a big deal that everybody gets in a huff about.....yes I messed up and I did pay the price but I also cannot afford the price of surcharges at this time and the cost of owning a car and ins and maint on the car ----so this works for me and I'm not agreeing on if someones license is suspended for DUI but mine is not!! My license is suspended for non-payment of surcharge....and my DUI was over 5 years ago.....everybody seems to forget that point?? I will try to keep updating as I was grieving the loss of more than a few friends and family and it's been a tough 8 months....I will try harder to update more often......thx all <3

Submitted by Jerseygirl on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 13:51.

ps....the free helmet was for my son, we get one every 1 or 2 years....and I appreciate this program very much as I am fin chall

Submitted by secretarts on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 15:48.

as a matter of fact I am comparing them. and just for the record, most of the people that are in Congress making the laws, have issues in their past too. Once you have served your sentence and done what is required of you by the court, in this country by law, you are no longer judged by that event.

Submitted by sangesf on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 01:08.

ROTFLMAO...
I must have hit a nerve with this person..
Messages me about this whole thing and when I give my take on the whole situation including the people in the south Florida area with gas powered bikes (which is kinda analogous to the ebike situation in NJ), I basically get told that I'm sanctimonious...
Ok, fine, then let me retort.. Oh wait! I can't! Person blocks me from being able to reply via message..
LOL

Well, I can tell you with almost absolute certainty that secretarts has no license, rides a gas powered bicycle (illegal in Florida), is not well educated (missspelled every other word), has gotten more than one DUI, has a few felonies under his/her belt, is low-income and wants to be treated like everyone else, who actually WORKS/WORKED for what they want/get.

Oh and to reply about the last statement in secretarts' response. Sorry, You are WRONG!!!
There are MANY situations where you ARE STILL judged for you're previous indiscretions and LEGALLY SO!!!!
Case and point(s)...
1.) Sexual offenders. (Megan's law)
2.) Any application you fill out asks about previous felony convictions. (Perfectly legal to ask)
3.) Can't ever be in possession of a firearm. (Here in Florida, that's especially true..

There are MANY reasons...
(My ex-GF was a felon, so I know a few things about it.

Submitted by secretarts on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 07:32.

actually I sent you a message in private because it was just that private discuss, not directly related to this forum subject. but you like to spout details:

1.) sexual offenders: this is not related to this topic.
2.) previous felony convictions: only for a job legal in Florida only on conviction not ticket or arrest for that matter,
3.) can't ever be in possession of firearm: hummm and this is not related to this topic.

as to your attempt at public statement on what I have or do, you really need to read the law about libel, it is a very touchy subject. but it would have to be damaging to my reputation, and since I already stated I have a very sordid past it cannot harm my reputation, beside what is your purpose in here?

and my appologies to the other members of this site for my misuse of this forum here.

Pages


Who's online

There are currently 0 users online.

Who's new

  • eric01
  • Norberto
  • sarim
  • Edd
  • OlaOst

Support V is for Voltage

Support V is for Voltage