Because there’s no constitutional basis for controlling risky behavior.
While seat belts are required to be present by federal law, the mandate to use them is required by state law. There is no federal constitutional issue in that regard.
The federal government has acquired a “power of the purse” which gives it more influence than the strict letter of the law spells out. The feds basically bribe the states to do things the feds’ way when it comes to highways and traffic laws. And the states have broad authority under eminent domain over the public right-of-ways. Pretty much since the very first automobiles took to the road, they were regarded as infernal death machines which would only be allowed on the road under the strictest oversight.
In a strict libertarian sense seat belt laws are an intrusion on personal choice; but unless you could come up with some constitutional ju-jitsu like a “right of privacy”, it would be hard to say just what commonly recognized right of yours was violated.
That’s simply not true. The federal government withholds money if states don’t comply with the desired seatbelt law. This is power exerted on a federal level without any law enacted by Congress.
yes, they are an intrusion on personal choice. My “right of privacy” as you put it is an intrinsic right unless you have a ju-jitsu like right to intervene without specific laws stating I DON’T have a right to privacy.
If you apply your philosophy of constitutional law then the government could mandate you wear a giant rubber donut while walking down the sidewalk because you might fall and hurt your hip.
New Hampshire has no seatbelt law. What money have they lost?
The federal government is offering extra highway money to states that change to the primary seat belt law. Florida would get an additional $37 million under the budget proposed by President Bush in January.
And please don’t argue that it’s “extra money”.
Is it your view that there is literally zero difference between “extra money,” and “withholds money?”
Both your statement and mine could be true together, they are not mutually exclusive. And withholding money is within the power of the Congress.
I am as staunch a gun rights supporter as they come but I don’t think this line of argument is a winner.
In some cases withholding money to motivate behavior is okay, and in some cases not. I’m okay with seat belt laws as a practical matter because the intrusion is minor and society pays the bills for the public road and the medical costs. The problem is Healthcare and the levers it creates. But telling people that they have to be okay allowing people to suffer for poor choices is also not a winning line of argument, as worthwhile as that may be.
People on our side of the gun rights argument would do best pushing issues that can win.
Yes.
Pretty much, yeah. The way it’s been done, it’s nothing short of extortion. It’s why every state has a minimum drinking age of 21. Many states didn’t, and wouldn’t now, but they would lose far too much federal money if they lower the age. Same with seatbelt laws. It’s a federal intrusion, and one hard to justify if you look to the constitution for what should be enumerated federal rights.
Could congress withhold money from states that don’t enact an assault weapons ban or otherwise limit gun rights (within the limits of the constitution)?
So you don’t think the pro-gun crowd should be fighting seat belt laws?
Plenty of states seem willing to forego billions of dollars in Medicaid money rather than accept Medicaid expansion, yeah, I know, “that different” because it also requires you to pay for 10% of the expanded Medicaid after 3 years. The drinking age requirement only hold 8% of highway funds ransom, you get the other 92% no matter what. This amounts to somewhere between 10 and 100 million dollars depending on the state, that’s not really extortion.
$10 million here, $100 million there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money. 
The percentage was reduced from 10% to 8% just in 2012, but by then all of the states had dutifully complied. 10% is pretty significant, IMO. The fact that all of the states, even those who were previously at 18 or 19, fell into line is indicative of the power of the purse. And of federal over-reach, IMO.
And risk creating in the public a perception that that defending a constitutional right is equivalent to opposing a safety regulation (on an activity that is not one*) that most of the public either accept or tolerate as a mere inconvenience? I would not either. That would be the gun-control argument.
(*If in your car or on your bike inside your own property you want to be unbelted and unhelmeted, knock yourself out (ha!). OTOH operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, we are pointedly and repeatedly advised at every chance, is NOT a basic right. So it gets regulated and most people will rather not fight on that hill. )
Withhold money from what? Federal highway funds are given to states that sign on to the feds’ highway programs; the states go along because this benefits their overall highway maintenance and expansion. The only comparable thing for firearms that I can think of is Federal funding for state National Guards that comply with federal rules. But I don’t think federal funding entirely unrelated to firearms could be held hostage to any kind of gun ban.
Someone better at parsing legalese than I am would have to go through the 1903 Militia Act and its follow-on legislation, but if I’ve read it correctly a state could in principle organize a state militia entirely independent of the National Guard, provided they did it on their own dime. It’s just that none of the states currently want to.*
*Yes, I know about the “State Defense Forces”, but on a narrow legal technicality they aren’t considered “militia”. Long story.
I don’t see why not. Funding bills can be written any way Congress wants them to regardless of whether or not there is a theme that unites the parts. If the federal government wants to withhold Medicare funding based on whether or not, the states song has the word “blood” in it, I don’t think that there is any constitutional principal to stop them.
Yup. The feds have held PILT money over the heads of Western states for completely un-related issues before.