> Over here in Germany, you might not move your car a meter > in public space without insurance covering damage caused by > you to other drivers: you don't get license plates without > insurance, and when your insurance gets terminated for any > reason, you have to return the license plates when without > proof of continuation.
What if you don't need insurance? What if you have more money than the insurance company and there's no possible accident that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for?
Do you still have to play this silly insurance game with the government?
(I've wondered this about Obamacare, too. Does Bill Gates actually have to sign up for a health insurance policy when he has so much money that there's no medical bill he wouldn't be able to just afford to pay outright?)
And in the Utah case, how does the cop who stops you on the road in the middle of the night verify your net worth to know that you don't need insurance?
> if the impounding is for everyone then we are all equal right?
Not really. Most of the people driving without insurance are illegals because they can't get insurance (or drivers licenses, in many cases), so the result of a law like this will be that the majority of seized vehicles will be from illegals, which will whip the typical grievance groups up into a frenzy, and the law will most likely either be repealed or gutted, as it was in California.
This is exactly the sort idiotic bullshit that needs to come to a stop. How much tax money is Pennsylvania going to use not only passing this law, but defending it against the ACLU a lawsuit, only to almost certainly lose because it violates 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence?
Not to mention it only applies in Pennsylvania, so any ex-con that wants to speak or write a book about her crime need only go to one if the other 49 states to do it with impunity, all while having the exact same "traumatic" impact on the victims.
This is nothing new for AMPAS. They've even gone after recipients who have tried to *give* their Oscars away to charities and museums. They absolutely hate that the statues pass down to family members along with the rest of a recipient's property and would love to be able to include a "right of reclamation" upon the death of the recipient to the award conditions, but their lawyers have told them that's a step too far even for them.