We all know the helmet issue is a big deal. I mean we all make our own personal choices when it comes to whether or not we wear a helmet and what type.kind.

But then when the state or government steps in and takes away or imposes on our personal choice…well then that’s when things get really heated. In a city that’s already up in turmoil over the biking community and the rallies that it hosts/tries to host in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the fire continues to burn with added fuel from issue with helmet laws. Check out this article written by Eric “Big E” Rutherford for the Weekly Surge.

Apparently the Constitution is just a rag that no longer means anything. So far the Myrtle Beach City Council and mayor have managed to supersede human liberties and state laws by passing ordinances that are contrary to what our forefathers intended when they wrote about us all being created equal and having inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by targeting motorcycle riders for selective enforcement of unfair laws designed to exclude us from enjoying our civil liberties.
Attorney Thad Viers is representing his brother, Bart, and BOOST, and Virginia attorney Tom McGrath is representing George Aakjer and about 50 others who received tickets for not wearing helmets while riding inside city limits.
The city passed its helmet ordinance in fall 2008 as part of a multilaw effort aimed at quelling the May motorcycle rallies that residents had complained about for years.
Viers has argued the law is unconstitutional and that the city has overstepped its bounds by making a law different than the state’s.
State law says riders younger than 21 must wear helmets, but it does not say anything about those 21 and older.
Because of the state’s silence, the city says it has the right to supplement the law.
“This is a bigger case than just helmets,” Viers said. “If the court were to rule in the city’s favor, it could lead to a hodgepodge of municipal laws, not just traffic laws, all across the state.”
McGrath said he is ready to argue his points.
“What the case really points to is whether the state has uniform traffic laws or not,” McGrath said. “If we don’t prevail, there will be no end to this.”
He has argued before supreme courts before, but not South Carolina’s. This will be Viers’ first Supreme Court appearance.
McGrath was already in Columbia on Tuesday.
City spokesman Mark Kruea said attorney Mike Battle is representing the city during today’s hearings, but city attorney Tom Ellenburg will also attend.
Each side has already submitted extensive documentation of its arguments, which the justices will have read. During the hearings, each side has 15 minutes to present its case, during which the justices might ask questions.
No one knows when a decision will be issued.
Several other s