On Mar 9, 3:50�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I believe that Florida does reciprocate with registrations and honors
my CT registration if I go to Florida for a month of fishing. *Now if
that is true and they honor the registration policies and procedures
of other states for transient use, then it follows that if an owner
who lives and normally operates his boat in a state that does not
require visible registration or even registration period is perfectly
legal in Florida waters up until they pass the 90 day period at which
time they are in violation of Florida law.


Shortwave, there's a difference between reciprocity of registration
and reciprocity of "no registration required". You're 100% right, your
CT registration will be honored in Florida. In fact, you can boat in
Florida for a full 90 consecutive days on your CT sticker, or up to a
total of 180 days per year.

Florida requires all watercraft on the waters of its state to be
registered. So does Washington (unless it's an unpowered skiff or
sailing dinghy) for that matter, and so do a probable majority of
states. You are considered to be in compliance in Florida if your boat
has a current registration from any state, and it will be honored. If
you come from a state that doesn't require boats to be registered, you
get a warning ticket to (as you precisely stated) "inform you about
the law". Florida is no more required to reciprocate a *lack* of
regulation than it would be to allow people from California, Oregon,
or Washington to carry small amounts of medical marijuana for personal
use while vacationing at Disney World. Coming from a state where an
activity isn't regulated has never meant that you can conduct that
activity without any regulation when visiting another state that
chooses to regulate it.

This cop is a jerk, no dobut. But if he is writing warning tickets to
out of state boaters with no registrations, he's not, as has been
claimed, ticketing people who are "totally legal". Something "totally
legal" in (say) Nebraska, Kansas, or Alabama doesn't have to be legal
in Florida- and that would include running a boat without a
registration.

Florida is a sovereign state with every right to control or regulate
activities within its own borders. If the state requires that all
watercraft have a state registration of some sort, then boaters from
states without registration need to stay out of Florida, apply for a
Florida registration, or put up with getting warning tickets that
carry a two-week window of opportunity to get a registration or remove
the boat from Florida. If the law is unpopular with the residents of
Florida, then they should lobby their state assembly or legislature to
amend or repeal it.

It does sound like the cop is annoying as hell, but he's enforcing a
valid law.





In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. *To put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:15:08 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Ah well, then we will have to disagree about our agreement to agree to
diagree about the disagreement.

Agreed?

Tom Francis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:15:08 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.
Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.
I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Ah well, then we will have to disagree about our agreement to agree to
diagree about the disagreement.

Agreed?

My people will get with your people concerning this matter.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:48:04 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:15:08 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.
Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.
I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Ah well, then we will have to disagree about our agreement to agree to
diagree about the disagreement.

Agreed?

My people will get with your people concerning this matter.

And I'll have my people disagree with your peoples that we can have an
excuse to do lunch. :)

On Mar 9, 7:55�am, Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. *o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. *:)

Let's agree to disagree.

And to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm all for that.

On 9 Mar 2007 08:47:17 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Mar 9, 7:55?am, Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. / put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

And to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm all for that.

Out of curiosity, what states don't require registration for boats?

Have any idea?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

-------------------------------
Florida requires all watercraft on the waters of its state to be
registered. So does Washington (unless it's an unpowered skiff or
sailing dinghy) for that matter, and so do a probable majority of
states. You are considered to be in compliance in Florida if your boat
has a current registration from any state, and it will be honored. If
you come from a state that doesn't require boats to be registered, you
get a warning ticket to (as you precisely stated) "inform you about
the law".
-------------------------------


It gets more confusing when considering a federally documented boat. Many
states, like Florida, require you to "register"a boat with the state even if
it is documented. You are not required to display the state registration
numbers however.

Other states, like MA (mine) does not require state registration of a
documented boat, so there is no reciprocal agreement to be had. I was
advised that after 90 days of being in Florida I would be required to
register my documented boat there. I chose to ignore it .... kept a low
profile ... and had the boat there for almost 2 years.

Eisboch