February 3, 2010

    It is good to have people like Laurie (Carol) and Bill (William) O’Day who step up when their rights are being violated and are willing to take on the government. It is good to have 47 others who are willing to join them in protesting government actions that affect their rights. It is great when you can start early in the process and get things on the record.

    As I began my argument in the Supreme Court on behalf of the 49 bikers who dared to ride in protest of Myrtle Beach’s Helmet Ordinance I asked the Court to look back to the December 2, 2008 record of the O’Days challenge to the helmet law when they were seeking an injunction.  I pointed to the portion of the record where the City agreed that there was a conflict between the Helmet Ordinance and the state law granting motorcyclists the right to freedom of choice.  This was important because it clearly established that the City was now trying to convince the Supreme Court that there was no conflict.  Listening to the argument of the City it was clear to me their position was that since current law did not mention people over 21 they could pass a law requiring people over 21 to wear a helmet. It was also clear  they didn’t understand the current law regarding helmets for those under 21.  When I spoke I immediately asked the Court to refer to pages 120-121 of the Appendix (documents filed on Appeal) and they would see that the General Assembly never repealed the 1967 universal helmet law they simply amended  it taking out the requirement that those over 21 wear a helmet, thereby, expressly granting to those over 21 the right to choose.  We consistently went back to the argument that the Uniform Traffic Laws had to be just that – uniform and that anything else would create chaos.

The City argued that they had a right to stop a nuisance and that the bike rally had become one but the Justices reminded them that they had other ways of dealing with the rally and had passed numerous other ordinances to do just that.

Questions were asked of the City Attorney concerning how they would handle the tickets now that they had no court to hear them in and the city was unable to answer.

Based on the questions the Justices asked the attorney for the City it seems the Court likely will render a favorable opinion for freedom.  However, I learned long ago to wait for the opinion before you celebrate. Hopefully, we won’t be disappointed.

Tom McGrath

Motorcycle Law Group