Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > General > General Discussion
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-04-2009, 09:30 PM   #46
Robb
EX E30 M3 Owner
 
Robb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North York
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnus View Post
I doubt your car is lower than a ferrari...
A ferrari is built low from the factory, a BMW isnt.. BIG DIFFERENCE.
If you want to try and make your car look and perform like a ferrari Porsche or Lambo etc just buy one...

Btw, how can a police officer decide that a car is unsafe ?
They are not licensed mechanics...

Last edited by Robb; 07-04-2009 at 09:35 PM.
Robb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 02:51 AM   #47
trd_mr2
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: winona
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
You may have lived in a communist state, but that does not equal authority to draw on your own experiences and equate them to communism as a whole. That's like saying because I live in Canada that I can draw conclusions based on my own life on how democracy relates to Zambia. It's not even close.

Essentially:
Your experience =/= communism as a standalone ideology

What happened to dude in this thread sucks, but it has nothing to do with communism. I am literally jumping on you for it, and that's because North Americans are constantly, and increasing it seems using communism as a synonym for anything negative.

canada is a police state buddy, the iron fist with the velvet glove
trd_mr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 03:29 AM   #48
Eurostyle
MaXsponsor
 
Eurostyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Milton
Posts: 14,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimjim View Post
...saying this is not like communism is the most ignorant thing ive ever heard....i came from a communistic country....and it seems as though everyone who did live in communism agrees, and the ones who didnt, have no idea.
+1 Arguing on this is just as retarded as me saying how hard it is to be black!
Unless you were lucky to live in a communist country, (and not the 1% in power) you are simply ignorant to the cause....
__________________
BIMMER HEAVEN
Specialized in BMW recycling, all OEM used parts
Up to 90% off new cost!!!
Most models E30 E36 E46 E90 E92 E34 E39 E60 E32 E38 E65 E66 X5 M3 M5


Call 11-8PM 416 821-2578
New inventory daily. 50+ cars in stock!
Eurostyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 03:47 AM   #49
Eurostyle
MaXsponsor
 
Eurostyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Milton
Posts: 14,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
You may have lived in a communist state, but that does not equal authority to draw on your own experiences and equate them to communism as a whole. That's like saying because I live in Canada that I can draw conclusions based on my own life on how democracy relates to Zambia. It's not even close.

Essentially:
Your experience =/= communism as a standalone ideology

What happened to dude in this thread sucks, but it has nothing to do with communism. I am literally jumping on you for it, and that's because North Americans are constantly, and increasing it seems using communism as a synonym for anything negative.


More people were killed by the communists then the Nazis...
Can someone show me a "good experience" with communism (unless you were on the profiting side)...In 99.9% of cases it was synonymous for EVERYTHING bad for people...and if you think otherwise; A. you are a communist who profits from it, or B. Very ignorant.
__________________
BIMMER HEAVEN
Specialized in BMW recycling, all OEM used parts
Up to 90% off new cost!!!
Most models E30 E36 E46 E90 E92 E34 E39 E60 E32 E38 E65 E66 X5 M3 M5


Call 11-8PM 416 821-2578
New inventory daily. 50+ cars in stock!
Eurostyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 08:25 AM   #50
Mister
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brantford
Posts: 62
canadians and Bill c-6

canadians and Bill c-6
please see attached links,utube video bill c6.Say good bye to your freedoms.
no search warrants ??? no trespassing??? wtf Mister
looks like they already started with buddy and your car. lucky they didn't just take the car,maybe next time.What ever label you want to call it doesn't matter.
what will we do about it??? fuc all as usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_0H...ch%2Eca%2Finde x%2Ephp%3Fcontext%3DviewArticle%26code%3DBUC200904 27%26articleId%3D13375&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud4bY...ch%2Eca%2Finde x%2Ephp%3Fcontext%3DviewArticle%26code%3DBUC200904 27%26articleId%3D13375&feature=player_embedded
__________________
There are two kinds of drivers out there.BMW drivers and all the !@#$% Rest. U want to catch a bimmer ,u better have a bimmer.
Mister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 11:43 AM   #51
Steve@ASPTuning
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by m3convert View Post
hey i wanna make this short i was leaving down town with buddy we were in my car cops pull me over for nothing they tell me my car is too low 7 cop cars show up they did a full in and out inspection they said i only have 1inch clearance on my car my hids were to bright 8k but ok they said i had to much camber and the funniest is my rear m brakes are to big to be stock and why are the back slotted and the front arent if they are stock lmao oh and why are the calipers red omg so they pull out a star srew and yank my plates give me a court data to show up to prove my car is safe to be on the road the ticket had no fines just date and unsafe motor vehicles so what do i have to do now
Wow..... the cops must of had a bad day... that's totally not cool dude! And ripping your license plate off your vehicle I don't think that's allowed. You could technically classify that act as being trespassing, and assault but it'd be hard in both cases to defend it since what was being assaulted is your vehicle, and not you. Then trespassing and damaging your property, you could definitely argue. They probably scratched your car while taking that plate off?

My best suggest, hire a lawyer and argue it. The cops in this case has no constitutional grounds to of pulled you over, and give you a ticket for your vehicle being "us-safe".

And Mister, is right I forgot about the Bill C6 that parliament just passed...


Steve
ASPTuning

Last edited by Steve@ASPTuning; 07-05-2009 at 12:00 PM.
Steve@ASPTuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 01:41 PM   #52
Porter86
shiftin gears
 
Porter86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 271
Send a message via MSN to Porter86
Dude, shitty buzz to hear man.
Porter86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 01:53 PM   #53
R.S.C
Imaginary Player
 
R.S.C's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 981
Sexy car and rims!
I'm going to be bring my car down to a similar height!

m3convert's car from midnight cruise


__________________
POS
R.S.C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 02:06 PM   #54
Porter86
shiftin gears
 
Porter86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 271
Send a message via MSN to Porter86
they pulled you for that?? THATS SHIT DUDE!! you should see of the vws n hondas that love the timmies at 3rd n qew in oakville. there lower.
Porter86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2009, 10:38 PM   #55
5thseries
biggerthen3
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brampton
Posts: 722
why bother sell these parts to the public if the cops are going to be on you about it.. it makes me sick man..
5thseries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2009, 02:13 AM   #56
Eurostyle
MaXsponsor
 
Eurostyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Milton
Posts: 14,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thseries View Post
why bother sell these parts to the public if the cops are going to be on you about it.. it makes me sick man..
Because its a billion dollar industry, and the government collects tax on it all...then they cash in on the tickets, also the lawyers get paid to fight those tickets, then the lawers pay income tax! To stop it will make no $en$ to them!

This i like speeding, it can ALL be stoped with one simple law; just get all cars to have speed limiters like the trucks. Very easy to do, but instead we have more profitable laws...
__________________
BIMMER HEAVEN
Specialized in BMW recycling, all OEM used parts
Up to 90% off new cost!!!
Most models E30 E36 E46 E90 E92 E34 E39 E60 E32 E38 E65 E66 X5 M3 M5


Call 11-8PM 416 821-2578
New inventory daily. 50+ cars in stock!
Eurostyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2009, 06:43 AM   #57
Mister
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brantford
Posts: 62
looks like your lucky they just took the plates.

well its just about law,so here are the first rights you lose.

The Abolition of the Law of Trespass

As a British Colony we inherited the British Common Law on trespass. Indeed, it has been one of the foundations of our right to own and enjoy property that no-one, including the police, can come onto our property or interfere with our property. We consider this to be such a fundamental freedom that when suing for trespass upon our land, we do not even have to prove we suffered any damage or loss. The law has traditionally held the right to private enjoyment of our land to be so significant, that the mere trespass upon it is enough to get a civil judgment. Our right to enjoy property free of trespass is not limited to land. We have the right to enjoy our personal property without interference. Anyone who interferes with our personal property commits trespass. We hold the right to the private enjoyment of property as so important, that we have placed specific provisions in the Criminal Code to protect it. These include: section 177 which makes it a criminal offence to trespass near a private home at night;
section 38 which makes it an offence to take away our personal property. It also allows us to prevent a trespasser from taking our personal property without worrying about being charged with assault;
section 39 which protects us from criminal prosecution for defending our personal property;
section 40 which enables us to use as much force as is necessary to prevent trespassers from entering our homes, and
section 41 which deem trespassers to commit assault if they resist attempts to remove them from a house or land. This section also allows persons to use force to remove persons from their homes or land.


Not no more.I hope nobody smokes a little weed and or rez rockets from the reserve,because they are in for a shit storm.I hope no ****en diddler is watchin your daughter.Mister
__________________
There are two kinds of drivers out there.BMW drivers and all the !@#$% Rest. U want to catch a bimmer ,u better have a bimmer.
Mister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2009, 06:52 AM   #58
Mister
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brantford
Posts: 62
i feel so much safer now that the state can.....

Bill C-6 abolishes the law of trespass. Subsection 20(4) provides: An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property, and they are not liable for doing so. Note that under subsection 20(4), an inspector is not limited to investigating the property owner. An inspector or any person accompanying an inspector can trespass on your property if investigating another person’s property and you have no recourse. Currently consumer safety is protected under the Hazardous Products Act, the Criminal Code and Civil Law while respecting the law of trespass. This raises the question as to whether it is necessary to abolish fundamental property rights under the justification of “consumer protection”. I look forward to comments on this question. The Right to Seize Property Without a Court Order, Without Reporting the Seizure to a Court, and for an Indefinite Period Section 20 provides in part: 20(1) Subject to subsection 21(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, stored, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or transported, or a document relating to the administration of this Act or the regulations is located. 20(2) The inspector may for the purpose referred to in subsection (1),

(a) examine or test anything – and take samples free of charge of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply – that is found in the place;
(d) seize and detain for any time that may be necessary
(i) an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in that place, or
(ii) the conveyance;
Please note that these sections do not allow an inspector to enter into your home. To enter a private home an inspector has to apply for a warrant (see section 21). These sections provide that, with the exception of a private home, inspectors can enter on any property in which the inspector believes a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, stored, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or transported. This would include: all media outlets that accept advertising of consumer products;
private property (excluding homes) in which a consumer product is stored;
all commercial property which is in any way connected with consumer products or parts of consumer products, and
conveyances such as trains and trucks.
Subparagraph 20(2)(a) permits the seizure of samples for testing. This means that subparagraph 20(2)(d) is not referring to the taking of samples for testing. Under subparagraph 20(2)(d) there is no limit to: how much property can be seized, and
how long the property can be seized.
There is also: no requirement for a warrant prior to seizure;
no requirement to report the seizure to a Court;
no mechanism to have the seizure and on-going detention reviewed by a Court or independent review board (as in the Hazardous Products Act), and most importantly
THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A HEALTH RISK BEFORE THERE IS A SEIZURE AND DETENTION. All that is required is that the seizure be for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance.
Considering that the stated purpose of the Act is to protect our safety, it is curious that there does not have to be a health risk for there to be a seizure. If we are being asked to surrender our property rights in the name of safety, we should consider when analysing this Bill whether there should be a safety requirement for there to be a seizure and unlimited detention. Under the Hazardous Products Act which Bill C-6 replaces, property owners have the right to apply to Court for the return of seized property. This raises the question as to why Bill C-6 takes away the rights of property owners to apply to Court for the return of seized property. The Private Home Problem Bill C-6 represents a startling removal of our freedom from State intrusions into our private homes. The right to be free from State Agents coming into our private homes uninvited has been a fundamental right for all of Canada’s history. Presently, the police or Health Canada Inspectors, can only get search warrants to enter our private homes if they have some evidence of criminal wrong doing.
Currently a Health Canada Inspector who wants to search your private home has to abide by the same rules as the regular police. The Inspector has to apply for a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code. Section 487 includes: 487(1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or place
(a) anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed,
(b) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence, or will reveal the whereabouts of a person who is believed to have committed an offence, against this Act or any other Act of Parliament,
(c) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any offence against the person for which a person may be arrested without warrant, or
(c.1) any offence related property, May at any time issue a warrant… Our current law strikes a balance between our need to be free from police intrusion into our private homes, and the State’s interest in investigating crime. This balance is struck by only allowing the search of our private homes when there is evidence placed before a justice of criminal wrong doing. Bill C-6 represents an astonishing removal of our right to be free from the police searching our homes unless there is evidence of criminal wrong doing. Subsection 21(2) of the Bill allows a justice of the peace to grant Health Canada Inspectors warrants to enter our homes if:
(a) the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe a consumer product is stored in the home [everyone’s home is filled with consumer products so this really is not a condition]. This condition can also be met if the Inspector has reasonable grounds to believe a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or
(b) transported, or a document relating to the administration of Bill C-6 or of the regulations to Bill C-6 is located in the home;
(c) Entry into the home is necessary for the Inspector to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with the Act or regulations, and
(d) Entry into the home was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused or to believe that consent to entry cannot be obtained from the occupant.
Allowing Inspectors the right to enter our private homes without having evidence of criminal wrong doing, is a significant departure from the right to privacy we currently enjoy. Before this is given up, we should ask:
1. should Health Canada Inspectors have more power to enter our private homes than the police which investigate much more serious matters under the Criminal Code and other Federal Laws?
2. are we in such danger that we need to give up what has traditionally been held as a fundamental freedom?
3. what is wrong with the current power Health Canada Inspectors share with other law enforcement persons under s. 487 of the Criminal Code. Are there examples where that rather broad power was insufficient for an investigation?
In answering these questions, it may be helpful to keep in mind that Bill C-6 was written by Health Canada, the very State Bureaucracy which will benefit from the new powers. We do not allow the police to write the Criminal Code for much the same reason we do not allow taxpayers to write the tax laws. I do not expect that a search warrant of a private home issued under Bill C-6 would stand up to a challenge in Court under s. 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 8 reads: “Everyone has the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure”. My expectation based on having made many s. 8 challenges in Court, is that the Courts will not allow our private homes to be searched without evidence of criminal wrong doing. However, this is no protection for those of us
who may have our private homes searched under Bill C-6 and who cannot afford to make costly constitutional arguments in Court. Our best protection against unconstitutional laws is to ensure that our elected representatives to not pass them. The State can Assume Control over the Movement of Private Property Without a Court Order and Without a Safety Concern Paragraph 20(2) includes: (2) The inspector may, for the purpose referred to in subsection (1), (e) order the owner or person having possession, care or control of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in the place – or of the conveyance – to move it or, for any time that may be necessary, not to move it or to restrict its movement; Section 24 of the Bill reads: 24 An inspector who seizes a thing under this Act shall release it if they are satisfied that the provisions of this Act and the regulations with respect to it have been complied with. The purpose set out in subsection 20(1) is “the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations”. As outlined above an “article to which this Act or the regulations apply” includes all consumer products and all property including equipment, buildings, vehicles, media outlets, and labs that are used in the manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labelling, testing or transportation of a consumer product. This means that an inspector can tell property owners to not move private property to check compliance or to prevent non-compliance regardless of how
trivial the compliance issue is and regardless of whether or not there is a health risk. I would expect that property owners would be surprised that the movement of their property can be restricted without the presence of even an imagined health risk. The State can Assume Control of Private Property, Including Land, Without a Court Order and Without a Safety Concern Bill C-6 enables the State to shut down businesses and to control public property for non-health reasons such as over a testing disagreement with the State or if the State believes there is a contravention of the Act or Regulations. The “contravention” does not have to be one that creates a health risk. For greater clarity, these new powers permit the State to take control of business and of private property for trivial violations of the Act or Regulations even if those violations do not in any way pose a safety problem. Currently the State has to apply to a Court for a warrant to gain control of private property for alleged offences. The property owner is currently protected as the Court will only issue a warrant on evidence under oath that meets a legal test. Property seized under a warrant has to be promptly reported to the Court. The Court then supervises the holding of the property to ensure it is returned if proper to do so. Bill C-6 removes these fundamental safeguards.
hxxp://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/discussion_paper_on_bill_c-61.pdf

Don't you feel so much safer now.Mister
__________________
There are two kinds of drivers out there.BMW drivers and all the !@#$% Rest. U want to catch a bimmer ,u better have a bimmer.
Mister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2009, 09:48 AM   #59
hypno_nls1
4th Gear Member
 
hypno_nls1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ajax
Posts: 671
sorry to tell you man its only because you ridiculously TUCKEDD if you look at ferraris and lambos and all those things you are tryign to compare yourself to, they arent tucked like you. i cant even tell you have tires on that car, i would love to be that low cause it looks orgasmic but i know police will be on meee
__________________

Fear Nothing. Risk Everything.


This is not your everyday, ordinary ****ing beamer!!
hypno_nls1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2009, 10:29 AM   #60
juzer
7000 RPM
 
juzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 192
viva communism and communist party of canada !
Attached Images
File Type: jpg title.jpg (25.8 KB, 198 views)
__________________
juzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.