Would-Be Tesla Owners Jump Through Hoops To Skirt Wacky Texas Rules

cartechboy writes "Texas is known for having the nation's most draconian anti-Tesla rules, based on intense and cash-rich lobbying and political donations by Texas car dealers. What's amazing is what would-be Tesla owners still have to do to get their hands on--and maintain--a Tesla Model S. How do you buy a car the laws try to stop you from owning? By jumping through wacky hoops, it turns out. Tesla store staff, for example, can't tell visitors how much a Model S costs. They can't give test drives, and they can't discuss financing options. Tesla service centers are banned from showing the company logo — or advertising that they do Tesla warranty work or service at all. So how have 1,000 Model S cars been sold? That would be sheer persistence."

Comments

Red state

[ugen]

Oh, those individual-freedom-loving Texans.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is a code word for do what WE want you to do. I also love how all the Teapublicans claim that by holding the operation of the government ransom for the ACA, they claim they are just "listening to the people." What a crock of BS. I don't know anyone who thinks shutting down the entire federal government is worth getting rid of a single piece of legislation that was legally passed.

Re:Red state

[garcia]

I'd love to see the Tesla sales numbers from Austin vs the rest of the state. Austin residents have long been at odds w/the rest of the state and their politics and as such I have a feeling we'd see a pretty high correlation with Austin vs Tesla ownership when compared w/the rest of the state.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

True and false, respectively.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, those individual-freedom-loving Texans.

What is amazing is the people who love regulation so much just hate this. You know, the ones who want everybody to be forced to drive an electric skateboard, or have no choice besides a bus or a bile. This is what giving regulatory power to your government brings you.

Re:Red state

[jythie]

Well, these dealers have more money, so they get more freedom. Texas freedom generally is not about individual for the masses, but about not keeping the power of the powerful in check.

Re:Red state

[gl4ss]

This is what giving regulatory power to your government brings you.

I thought this was what bringing regulatory power to your local businessmen brings you...

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

They voted down the bills submitted by the house because they had their crazy teabagger anti healthcare bullshit lumped into them. They wouldn't pass a clean bill so the senate shut them down. They still didn't pass a clean bill, just one with the right perks to make everyone happy.

Re:Red state

[mwvdlee]

You think any Texans except the oil companies actually want this Tesla sales ban?

This isn't Austin vs. the rest of the state, this is oil companies vs the rest of the state.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, those individual-freedom-loving Texans.

More like bible-thumping-batshit crazy Texans.
Antiscience
Antiprogress
Antihealth
Antigovernemt
Anti-anything.

You're Anti, you're a Texan alright.
Texas : the integralist cesspool of a decaying empire.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks

Yes, by not agreeing to pass whatever the republican wanted, exactly how they wanted it. Im a pretty moderate guy, i fall somewhere in the middle, at this point though im probably a communist to them, i know for a fact that im not a real american, they told me so, they told me they speak for Americans, real Americans, and so by default if i don't agree with there positions or tactics then i must not be a real american. That's what every. single. one. have said at one point or another.

And while its true that Corporatism sees no political party lines its clear that you do. Since its clear that you thinks its the democrats fault for not accepting the republican budget.

Re:Red state

[cpt kangarooski]

What is amazing is the people who love regulation so much just hate this. You know, the ones who want everybody to be forced to drive an electric skateboard, or have no choice besides a bus or a bile. This is what giving regulatory power to your government brings you.

Well, I'm sure your choice would be the bile, from the tone of your post.

Seriously, who wants regulation for its own sake? There's usually some other goal in mind, and regulations are seen as a means for achieving it.

(Also, buses are okay for feeder routes, and if you have to have any sort of automobile, an electric is often going to be the best option. But electrified rail is the best motorized transportation out there AFAIK)

Re:Red state

[iserlohn]

Regulations that protect the public from profiteering corporations == good.

Regulations that protect profiteering corporations from competition to maintain profits == bad.

Seems easy enough to understand. The problem is not regulations, but what it achieves (and how it does it). Spend too much time thinking about the means and you'll lose sight of the ends.

Re:Red state

[sycodon]

"I'd love to see the Tesla sales numbers from big cities vs the rest of the state."

Fixed.

In all those itty bitty northeastern states, where you can spit from one state to another, having charging stations plentiful enough is easy. But in Texas, once you get out of the big cities, even for gas you need to at least think a bit ahead.

Re:Red state

[CanHasDIY]

Well, these dealers have more money, so they get more freedom.

Oh, so in other words, exactly the same as every other state government in the nation, as well as the national government itself.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a great example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, of which the Tea Party makes great use.

Re:Red state

[intermodal]

This one's about the car dealerships, not the oil companies. General Motors has been one of the key electric car pushers, but their dealers were far from hands-off on this one.

For the oil companies, sticking it to Tesla is just a fringe benefit.

Re:Red state

[jythie]

Pretty much, though the balance between 'more freedom for the powerful to exercise their freedom on others' and 'protect the weak from the powerfull's freedom' varies from state to state. For better or worse, a big part of Texas's ethics revolve around the idea that the best way for people to accumulate wealth is to not protect them, thus encouraging them to get stronger. Thus anyone who does not get one of those coveted higher slots are simply personal failures, which reenforces the idea of the rights of the powerful since not only did they 'earn' it, but the people who did not are inferior in one way or another, otherwise they would be powerful too.

Re:Red state

[interval1066]

This is all about the strength of the car dealer lobby in Texas, and the politicians who have interests in them, that's all. After oil, car (and truck) dealers are the #2 industry there. That's an overstatement, but pretty darn near up there. That's all that's going on there, its not about "freedom" or any other political catchphrase.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

(And I hate to break it to you, but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks.)

You're either an idiot or an asshole. Or both. So let me explain based on the assumption you're simply ignorant. Here's how politics works:

1. Submit a bill titled "The most wonderful bill in the history of mankind which everybody loves excepts evil fucking bastards."
2. Add something in this bill which says that everybody must abduct, kill, and eat 1 dozen babies per week.
3. Watch opponents vote against bill because it is sick and wrong.
4. Proceed to loudly proclaim that your opponent just voted against the most wonderful bill in the history of mankind and thus has proven himself to be an evil fucking bastard.

Rinse and repeat. They all do it. You can claim Senate Democrats "voted down the budget" which is not even close to the whole story. Or you can say that House GOP pushed a pile of pigshit up to the Senate. Most revealing is how you use the phrase "THE budget". There is no budget until it's voted into law, what was sent was A proposed budget.

Quit getting your information from the bullshit on TV, it's mostly a bunch of partisan crap. Go read the actual bill, look at the riders attached to it. Often a bill which looks great up front contains a whole bunch of really stupid bullshit. Ask your elected rep why he/she voted for/against a bill, don't just take the title and start screaming "OMG Senator DickWiggle just voted against the Save the Children bill, so he must be in favor of murdering the children!"

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

What we have here is a failure to discriminate.

There are regulations that serve a good purpose, there are regulations that serve purport to serve a good purpose, but are really serving another agenda, and there are plain and simple bad regulations serving a bad purpose.

What's amazing is the people who seem to want to throw them all out, as if that will be a miraculous cure for all that ails us.

Re:Red state

[FatAlb3rt]

As if this is limited to Texas. Good for you though, you got your low-hanging karma.

Re:Red state

[interkin3tic]

Lets not engage in false equivalency just to avoid pissing anyone off. There are real differences between red states and blue states in terms of personal freedoms. Liquor laws for example are a hallmark of those fucking bible-thumpers. That has affected me a lot more than restrictions on buying an electric car. Perhaps you're talking specifically about owning a gun? I dunno, seems like you can buy a gun in any blue state, but there are fucking dry counties in Texas where you cannot buy alchohol at all.

You can't even say red states allow more flexibility for companies and "economic freedom." (Points to current article.)

If you're uncomfortable with how close that sounds to (gasp) taking a political position, you can give yourself the following out: it's not political or ideological differences so much as it is culture. This isn't a conservative/liberal difference. This is morons allowing their government to be run by the highest bidder, and maybe a little bit of misplaced hate at environmentalism (electric cars and all). Conservatives should be angry at government meddling here, it's clearly the exact opposite of free market economics. Texas here isn't being conservative, Texas is being dumb, ignorant, and lazy.

Anyway, the point isn't to say "Ha ha, blue states are better than red." Or shouldn't be. The point should be to highlight stupidity in government no matter where it happens. And I'd argue that there's a lot more egregious stupidity in Texas than in some blue states. Perhaps I'm still just pissed off at the dry county thing where I was stuck for New Years that one time. Fuck you, Texas.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

uh-huh...and a budget? Senate Democrats again; specifically Reid.
You libs are funny twisting yourselves in knots trying to protect your party. Party first, Country second is your screed.

You're a fucking retard.

Here's a source you ought to be able to trust, Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/15/house-gop-floats-plan-to-address-debt-ceiling-government-funding-in-response-to/

"House Republicans abruptly cancelled plans to take up a revised budget proposal Tuesday evening after leaders struggled to round up votes, leading Senate negotiators to resume bipartisan talks in hopes of reaching a deal before Thursday's debt ceiling deadline."

Go educate yourself or STFU. There was not one single bill, not one single vote, they've been arguing and fucking around and playing politics. I'm not going to get into an argument about whose fault it was that it took so long, but trying to claim that this was all the Senate and the Dems at fault is just flat out fucking wrong.

Re:Red state

[geekoid]

"...but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks"
becasue pubs were adding stuff that shouldn't be part of it.

If the rolls were reversed and the Dems added a rider that outlawed guns, would you blame the pubs for not agreeing to the budget?

Re:Red state

[geekoid]

Yeah, and they way the people of the state have stood up to stop this really proves you point!

Stop making excuses.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Austin and I see at least one Model S a day. There are two in my neighborhood, and a few in the school drop-off line. I can't believe it is only 1,000 sold in Texas.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are still incorrect on every level. The House was passing a bill designed to defund a law that was already passed by the aforementioned House, the Senate, and signed into law by the President. It had even withstood the Supreme Court. Trying to take the money away instead of striking a law down is not how the process works. It was pure showmanship. It's the ultimate case of childhood pouting and a temper tantrum. Calling it anything else is entirely disingenuous.

If they wanted to challenge the law, they should have been done via a proper bill. Oh wait, they did. Repeatedly. And it was repeatedly voted away. And yet the ACA continues because that is, once again, how the process works. But, you know, keep on trucking with your partisan hatred and willful ignorance. I may not like the implementation of the ACA, but at least I am rational about it and believe it can be fixed. I choose to exercise my opinion with a vote. Once again, this is how the process works.

Oh, and for the record, I know it is inconceivable for Tea Party folks, but those that support the idea of the ACA are operating under the silly notion that in taking care of all of the United States' citizens, we are actually doing what is best for the country as a whole. Aren't viewpoints interesting?

Re:Red state

[Quakerjono]

So what? A budget resolution isn't an appropriations bill. If it fails to pass, the government doesn't go dark or stop working. Plenty of examples since 1974's Congressional Budget Act of joint budgets not being reconciled. Sometimes it's the Dems, sometimes it's the Republicans. In 1999, 2005 and 2007, when Republicans held majorities in both chambers of Congress, they still couldn't pass a joint budget resolution.

Re:Red state

[JeffAtl]

You are confusing liquor laws.. They have almost nothing to do with morality but are mostly in place to protect the distributors - pretty much the same thing as what the car dealerships are doing. Some of the bluest of states have the most draconian liquor laws.

While it is true that "blue laws" have been used to restrict alcohol sales as well, but again, those are applied in non "bible-thumper" states and cities as well.

Re:Red state

[asylumx]

Well, I guess technically this would be giving regulatory power to your government then allowing your government to be sold to your local businessman for personal gain.

Re:Red state

[geekoid]

Busses are the least efficient transportation. Car's are better if you are looking for clean options.

Re:Red state

[JeffAtl]

This has absolutely nothing to do with oil companies. This is all about the car dealership lobby.

The car dealership lobby tends to have a lot of power in state politics - especially in states with large rural and suburban populations.

Re:Red state

[CurveBall]

Yeah, because lobbying only happens in red states.

Re:Red state

[omnichad]

Regulations that protect profiteering corporations from competition to maintain profits == bad.

Why does Obamacare seem to get a free pass on this?

Re:Red state

[Petron]

The last given to the Senate by the House (linky), before the shutdown, was: Pay for everything, including Obamacare, delay individual mandate for 1 year (Pres. Obama delayed the Corporate Mandate for 1 year, why not people too? People before Corporations right?) and cancel subsidies for lawmakers (Senators and Representatives) to pay for their personal health insurance (they make avg $174,000/year, people in the private sector making 1/3 that won't get subsidies...) and it was rejected.

To me that deal seems rather reasonable, especally with the hardships seen trying to get health insurance through the exchange website.

Here is a nice back and forth with a what compromises were offered and refused.

Re:Red state

[lbmouse]

Austin IS the oasis in America's kitty litter box.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

seems like you can buy a gun in any blue state

Only because of the courts... NY, D.C., and others, basically outlawed guns, until the courts overturned the rules.

I'm a registered Democrat, who has never owned or fired a gun, yet I'm disgusted at the faith-based gun control laws being advocated, despite all evidence EVER, showing they only have the opposite effects. And worse, exploiting dead children to push for gun control laws that undeniably wouldn't have saved any of those children. Universal background checks are a great idea, but all other gun control laws currently suggested are pure idiocy.

Re:Red state

[mbkennel]

Constitutional. It takes 51 senators to pass a law. Notice that one can't gerrymander states.

Re:Red state

[mbkennel]

No free pass.

Obamacare exchanges promote direct, immediate competitive substitutability, at least in insurance plans. In states which didn't try to sabotage the law, the premiums come in somewhat lower than originally projected.

A number of insurers are not participating because the properties of the insurance pool are not known---with time they will be and the number of competitors will increase.

Re:Red state

[CanHasDIY]

No free pass.

Obamacare exchanges promote direct, immediate competitive substitutability, at least in insurance plans. In states which didn't try to sabotage the law, the premiums come in somewhat lower than originally projected.

Yes, but unfortunately deductibles are much, much higher than originally expected.

An $85/mo premium isn't really helpful when you've still got to drop $12,000/yr before insurance picks up the tab.

Re:Red state

[Herschel Cohen]

To cite a Fox News site as you hurl the acusation that the other party is ignorant and needs to be educated implies you are the one with deficiencies that will not be remedied by any call to reason or logic. Only a true true believer can give Fox News as a source that delivers unvarished truth . Thus, cease with the name calling unless and until you are willing tol stand behind your words with a real identity, even then do not expect rapture to follow.

Re:Red state

[omnichad]

Individual mandate.

Re:Red state

[CanHasDIY]

Pretty much, though the balance between 'more freedom for the powerful to exercise their freedom on others' and 'protect the weak from the powerfull's freedom' varies from state to state. For better or worse, a big part of Texas's ethics revolve around the idea that the best way for people to accumulate wealth is to not protect them, thus encouraging them to get stronger.

That's not exclusive to Texas, though - California, Texas' polar opposite, is very, very similar in this regard. Just look at the way their politicians deny citizens the right to self protection as guaranteed by the Constitution, while themselves never stepping foot in public without a cadre of bodyguards packing automatic weapons.

Re:Red state

[lgw]

WTF is an "oil company"? No large company has called itself an "oil company" for years - they are "energy companies", and have spent decades moving into natural gas alongside oil. And they don't care whether your car gets its energy from gas at the pump or natural gas at the generator.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out when you paint with a wide brush. Missouri is a "red state".

Guns? Hell yes. Even concealed ones, with a ridiculously easy-to-get permit, of course.

Liquor? There used to be dry counties, right up until the state legislature repealed and banned blue laws state-wide. It's such a hands-off approach that the state gives up millions in federal highway maintenance money due to allowing passengers to drink from an open container in a moving vehicle. Minors are allowed to consume alcohol here, just as long as they're not "in possession", so when the cops show up, they just put the cup down before the cops can bust them. The rural baptist nutbags haven't been able to even gain a small foothold. The excise taxes are low per-unit, but provide a substantial boost to the state economy, especially around the borders. The eight bordering states (IL, IA, NE, KS, OK, AR, TN, KY) all have more restrictive alcohol control laws, and they all have people come across the border to Missouri to buy booze. Oh, and fireworks. Those are legal here too.

Meanwhile, there's no push to swap textbooks for bibles or force Tesla sales to be handled through a dealership.

What makes Missouri so hands-off? Pre-civil war, it was a slave state. During the civil war, it didn't secede, instead waiting for the feds to pass appropriate legislation to decide the whole issue, like how that whole "representative democracy" thing is supposed to work. After the civil war, the whole state went "southern democrat" for the most part. That's when the "Show Me" attitude developed. (See here for more.)

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the NY SAFE Act is "some of the most permissive gun laws in the country"?

Re:Red state

[diamondmagic]

You can't add a rider to a budget that takes positive action, that wouldn't be "germane". You can, however, remove things from the budget. Democrats didn't like it and so they voted the budget down until they got what they wanted.

Re:Red state

[jbengt]

And they don't care whether your car gets its energy from gas at the pump or natural gas at the generator.

Actually, most of them would probably rather sell more natural gas to the electric companies: Fracking has created a huge glut in natural gas supply in the US, which can't be easily shipped out of the country, so its' price has dropped dramatically in the US. On the other hand, the oil extracted by fracking can easily be sold on the world market at world market rates, even if we don't consume here.

Re:Red state

[couchslug]

There are no "Conservatives" any more who matter. There exist religious fanatics and pimps for big business, and between the two there is plenty of overlap.

It's time to stop regarding "Conservatism" as having any sort of positive contribution to the US beyond the preservation of the Second Amendment, and if Democrats would embrace that Amendment they'd gain massively in the polls. The Cold War is over, the US and China won, and the US has no effective enemies left. "Defense" now only means "perpetual globalist wars" but the Democrats are down with those too so not even the globalists need "Conservatives" as they own both Parties.

Re:Red state

[squiggleslash]

(And I hate to break it to you, but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks.)

No they didn't.

The Senate passed the budget, with one minor amendment that had nothing to do with the budget. The Republicans in the House refused to allow a vote on the final bill.

Re:Red state

[interkin3tic]

I'm skeptical that dry counties, where you cannot sell alchohol at all, are to increase sales of alchohol.

Re:Red state

[interkin3tic]

if you were too stupid to figure out where the nearest county line was so you could buy booze, then I have zero sympathy for your rant.

I didn't live there and this was before the era of smartphones. It was new years, and my relatives there don't drink much. Anyway, "There are ways around it" make a bad law become not bad.

Re:Red state

[interkin3tic]

It's such a hands-off approach that the state gives up millions in federal highway maintenance money due to allowing passengers to drink from an open container in a moving vehicle.

Wait, when was this? I went to college in Missouri. This was definitely not true at taht point.

Minors are allowed to consume alcohol here, just as long as they're not "in possession", so when the cops show up, they just put the cup down before the cops can bust them.

Uh... how exactly is that legal then? Sounds sort of like saying "Murder is legal so long as you do not get arrested for it."

Re:Red state

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

I'm a registered Democrat, who has never owned or fired a gun, yet I'm disgusted at the faith-based gun control laws being advocated, despite all evidence EVER, showing they only have the opposite effects. And worse, exploiting dead children to push for gun control laws that undeniably wouldn't have saved any of those children. Universal background checks are a great idea, but all other gun control laws currently suggested are pure idiocy.

You could compare to Australia, which is very similar to states in the US in other ways, but has had successful gun restrictions put in place for a while now. If you don't want to look at the stats (admittedly hard to do with so much misinformation around) you could just watch The Daily Show's (3 part) take on it. Funniest is the 3rd part that debunks the myths of how long it takes to implement and includes stumbling around in the wilderness as a metaphor for US lawmakers on this issue.

Re:Red state

[interkin3tic]

and if Democrats would embrace that Amendment they'd gain massively in the polls.

The NRA, being the most effecitve lobby in the US, DOES actually push a good number of democrats to be pro second amendment. Doesn't help their national image.

I think there are still real conservatives out there, they're just massively out-spent by the unholy alliance you mentioned, the Norquist tea party group. Small government conservatism isn't extinct. Deport the tea party and jail the lobbyists pushing to cut taxes to the breaking point (without cutting spending), and republican can become a party that makes positive changes once again very rapidly.

Re:Red state

[FatLittleMonkey]

"I'll kill us all unless I get what I want."
No.
"Okay, I'll kill us all unless I get some of what I want."
No.
"But I compromised! You're not being fair!"

Re:Red state

[mattack2]

If the rolls were reversed and the Dems added a rider that outlawed guns, would you blame the pubs for not agreeing to the budget?

No, I wouldn't.

I actually am very strongly in FAVOR of the tactic some of them were doing, single issue bills. However, NOT when the entire government is shut down. Pass a comprehensive bill to "fund the government" (as we're colloquially calling it), then do single issue bills from now on. I would definitely be in favor of that, but since they were only doing it WHILE the shutdown was on, it was a lame stunt.

Re:Red state

[mattack2]

Busses are the least efficient transportation.

[citation needed]

Now, of course, I am presuming a bus with a lot of people on it, not a completely empty bus. (Not necessarily a packed bus either.) How isn't a bus with a lot of people on it more efficient than a bunch of separate cars (even if they have more than one occupant)?

Plus, there are hybrid busses nowadays too.

Re:Red state

[drakaan]

I suspect you could have found a party, booze, and/or a nearby liquor store or bar if you had really wanted to, is all I'm saying (still). I agreed with you at the outset of my comment that I think dry counties are a stupid idea.

Re:Red state

[TheCaptain]

It always cracks me up when people say that Austin is the best city in Texas. It's not because it's wrong though - it just sounds kinda like saying that "housewares" is the best department in Walmart.

Re:Red state

[MaskedSlacker]

During the civil war, it didn't secede, instead waiting for the feds to pass appropriate legislation to decide the whole issue, like how that whole "representative democracy" thing is supposed to work

That is the most absurd characterization of Civil War Missouri I've ever heard. Missouri was the scene of the most intense internecine violence of the entire war. The state didn't secede, true, but the neighbors were murdering each other in their beds over it. I would not call that "how that whole "representative democracy" thing is supposed to work."

Re:Red state

[internerdj]

The individual mandate is a concession to the insurance industry so that they could support the regulatory demand of insuring people with preexisting conditions. The public was asking for the government to fix it and they did and now the public can see why insurance companies were denying people with preexisting conditions.

Re:Red state

[Sri Ramkrishna]

That's because what so called conservatives are calling conservative is not but reactionary politics.

Re:Red state

[dkf]

You can't use the budget to take positive action like killing babies

You have a twisted mind.

Re:Red state

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Oh brother. Yeah, both sides do it. False equivalency. Only one party was willing to go the edge.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

You could compare to Australia, which is very similar to states in the US in other ways, but has had successful gun restrictions put in place for a while now.

Actually, we need more time to determine if it will have a positive effect...

"because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant."

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws

I've given up on the Daily Show. It has become extremely heavy-handed and preachy on any topics the host or writer feel strongly about. They're serious and political when they want to be, and write it off as being a comedy show when they don't want to take responsibility or justify what they've said.

Re:Red state

[spire3661]

Australia didnt have the 2nd Amendment to contend with. The Founding Fathers felt so extraordinarily strongly about private gun ownership they made put it right after the right to speak.

Re:Red state

[Grishnakh]

There are real differences between red states and blue states in terms of personal freedoms. Liquor laws for example are a hallmark of those fucking bible-thumpers.

BS. I live in New Jersey, a "blue state", and we have blue laws (liquor laws) here too: can't buy liquor on Sundays, can't buy it from regular grocery stores, etc.

Or how about marijuana? Arizona, a famously "red state", has legalized medical marijuana. New York, a stalwart "blue state", has kept it strictly illegal.

Re:Red state

[omnichad]

That doesn't change the fact that it "protects profiteering corporations from competition to maintain profits," which is what I was responding to upthread.

Re:Red state

[Grishnakh]

Australia and UK both. However, both Australia and the UK share a giant difference with the US: they're islands. The US is not; it shares borders with other countries (really long borders too). It's a lot easier to prevent smuggling on an island.

Also, Australia has a tiny fraction of the US's population.

Re:Red state

[JeffAtl]

True, but dry and very restrictive counties/municipalities aren't unique to the bible belt - plenty of that in blue states as well.

Re:Red state

[Petron]

So you are saying:
Asking people to be treated as well as Corporations is not fair?
Asking people who are making over 3x the nation's average pay to NOT get subsidies (while people making average aren't getting subsidies)... that's not fair?

Funding everything + Obamacare + giving citizens the same deal as corporations + making some rather rich people pay their own way... how is that not fair?

Re:Red state

[Fjandr]

The problem with the ACA is not in its goal, but in the implementation.

Despite the USSC calling it legitimate, in no way could the Constitution have been originally interpreted to give the Federal government complete authority over any transaction (or in this case to demand a transaction take place) simply on the basis of their taxing authority.

It was passed and upheld in the way it was because that was the easiest way to accomplish the feat, rather than the legitimate way to accomplish the feat. Anyone who supports the ends justifying the means has no right to complain when something they dislike is accomplished the same way (like the ability of the Federal government to ban anything via the taxing authority - e.g. marijuana laws).

Political groups are willing to look the other way way when it's something they support, and scream bloody murder when it's something they don't. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this behavior.

Re:Red state

[Medievalist]

Holy shit, someone thinking outside a predetermined cartoon box on slashdot.

Are you sure we haven't been magically transported into the past, before the paid shill battalions got here?

Re:Red state

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

I thought the Canadians were considered mostly harmless. Nope, sorry, my mistake (would be the response of a typical Canadian).

Oh and Australia has a much more populated Indonesia next door (on the global map it is almost touching) as the Mexican equivalent (without the tortias or the hats) and a spread out population similar to the US. I don't really know how this got so far off topic that guns are the main focus of this thread, but that is /.

Re:Red state

[jythie]

Yeah, california has plenty of its own problems.

Re:Red state

[Grishnakh]

Oh and Australia has a much more populated Indonesia next door (on the global map it is almost touching) as the Mexican equivalent

There's a slight problem: there's a big body of water separating the two. You can't exactly walk between Indonesia and Australia (and it's too far to swim while carrying a bunch of contraband on your back). Yes, you can use boats, but the Australian Navy is very active in patrolling their EEZ waters, largely to discourage illegal fishers (usually from other neighboring countries), but also to prevent smuggling. By contrast, the border with Mexico is about 2000 miles long, mostly on land (or a puny little creek called a river in parts), and largely wide-open which is why there's so much drug and human smuggling into the US from Mexico.

Re:Red state

[Tom]

despite all evidence EVER, showing they only have the opposite effects.

I'd be interested in that evidence, because up until now all the evidence I've ever seen indicates that gun accidents are in fact causing more deaths than gun-related crimes.

Re:Red state

[diamondmagic]

Grandparent's words, not mine.

Re:Red state

[sjames]

There is noting at all inconsistent about believing that APPROPRIATE regulation can make things better than total anarchy.Naturally, people who believe that will be opposed to inappropriate regulation.

Re:Red state

[diamondmagic]

The senate eventually passed a bill, but not before the House sent nearly a dozen bills their way.

Re:Red state

[Darinbob]

Speaking as a decline-to-state voter, both sides are idiots attempting to fool other idiots by claiming that the other side is at fault. Republicans claim to have offered deals that the Democrats rejects, and the Democrats claim to have offered deals that the Republicans rejects, which means both sides tell the voters that it's the other side's fault. Both sides believe that crossing the aisle to work together really means pressuring the other side until they give in. Anytime someone is close to getting a bill that has a chance of being passed, someone sticks a poison pill in it.

Re:Red state

[Darinbob]

Basically, the Tesla side is losing because they didn't pay the appropriate bribes.

Re:Red state

[Safety Cap]

All freedom for me and none for thee. Some choice quotes from our idiot governor, Rick Perry:

Our view is that individuals and families can govern their lives better than bureaucrats.

Except when it comes to buying a car?

Conservatives are winning offices, and champions of big government are cleaning out their desks right now.

Since "convervatives" ARE "champions of big government", please clean out your desks and hit the road.

Americans want government that is leaner, more efficient, and less intrusive into their personal lives.

Yes, and that includes being able to test drive a car, you cretin.

In America, the people are not subjects of government, the government is subject to the people.

...but only Super People like PACs and Corps, right? Tiny Meat People don't count.

Re:Red state

[non0score]

Please do explain if possible -- I'm very interested in reading the explanation. However, I have to admit I have the preconception of "we're not letting you play video games because this is for your own good."

Re:Red state

[Darinbob]

Franchises have to be indepent though. There's no control left at that point for Tesla to require the franchise to do the appropriate training to the customer, or to prevent the franchisee from selling gasoline models side by side with the Tesla, or even to have the franchise even attempt to sell the Tesla autos beyond having a sign that says "we also sell Tesla".

There were originally good reasons for all the laws that forbid auto makers from not selling directly to the public. Those laws are not necessarily valid anymore, and the auto dealer associations aren't fighting to protect those laws for the original reasons, but instead to protect their profits.

This is sort of like saying Starbucks can sell their coffee in the state if only they would build stores that looked exactly like the 1970's coffee shops.

Re:Red state

[kwbauer]

Universal you say? How are you going to get the guy selling guns out the back of his van in that little alley to run a background check to verify that his drug dealing customer is allowed to purchase the handgun? If you don't solve that one, then you don't have universal background checks; you only have more hassling of law-abiding citizens.

Re:Red state

[sbditto85]

What was being added? (honest sincere question) I thought the dems were against the piecemeal strategy, because they wanted to maintain pressure against the reps ... didn't know the reps were adding things into it.

Re:Red state

[iserlohn]

Most people that support universal healthcare don't believe that the ACA is the end-state. It's not the ideal system, but more of a first-step in getting there.

Re:Red state

[Patent Lover]

Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alcohol_control_in_the_United_States.svg

Re:Red state

[JeffAtl]

So you think that Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey are Bible Belt states?

Check out the list of dry communities in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

Re:Red state

[guises]

I think you missed the point. Fox News is a fine source when you're looking to debunk right-wing claims: if even Fox says that your claim is untrue, then you have very little ground to stand on.

You are correct that Fox is not a source for truth, you wouldn't cite it as an affirmation of any positive claim, but it's perfectly good for this purpose.

Re:Red state

[Patent Lover]

You're looking at partly dry counties. Not dry counties.

Re:Red state

[Luckyo]

The obvious point is that even extremely pro-republican source is showing that anti-republican point of view is correct. Everything you just stated basically reinforces his point.

Re:Red state

[ArsonSmith]

But shutting down a few extremely visible portions might be. Pull the piglets of the tit and hear them scream!!

Re:Red state

[ArsonSmith]

The optimist believes in APPROPRIATE regulation.
The pessimist believes all regulation is bad.
The realist understands that regulation begins with good intentions. Often times establishes itself as good. Then is forgotten about opening up for regulatory capture and the reverse of the original goal.

Re:Red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as a texan, GM != Oil Company

Most of our complaints about Tesla is they don't make a truck, Those pansy as electric sedan's are fine for the little woman.

Shame about your small cock.

Re:Red state

[sjames]

Then the pragmatist tosses the bums out and fixes the regulations.

The problem is we have too many pessimists trying to 'prove' that they're realists gumming up the works.

Re:Red state

[sumdumass]

Maybe you d not know enough people.

One of the tea party sites claims 860 some thousand people sent letters supporting the defund effort. A petition had over two million signitures.

Also, the government was only shut down because democrats refused to give on the aca. The house passed everything to fund the government but funding for the aca.

Re:Red state

[jonwil]

I dont know about Texas specifically but I do know that there was a situation where a Chevrolet dealer got in trouble with GM for not following the mandatory corporate image in the building of the dealership (i.e. it didn't have the colors, materials, signage etc required for a Chevy dealership)

So there is no reason that I can see that Telsa can't require dealers to comply with requirements about how the cars must be displayed and how the showroom has to be set up. (e.g. requirements about signage)

Re:Red state

[dave420]

This is no big issue. Simply make owning a firearm a criminal offence, using one in a crime a massive offence, and they won't be used anywhere near as much. Then have the police remove all the guns they come across, and the number of guns decreases massively. When a criminal doesn't feel the need to have a gun in order to commit a crime (as their opponents won't be armed), they no longer use them. Crime will still exist, but far fewer people will die. Of course this won't work in the face of the US's bizarre gun culture, so I guess the point's moot. Complaining about geography or population size has nothing to do with the problems.

Re:Red state

[dave420]

Democracies can be republics or not. The two are not contradictory. I have no idea why people have problems with such simple words.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

In several states, it's illegal to sell a gun without involving a licensed dealer to perform the background check and transfer. Not difficult at all.

Re:Red state

[Stuarticus]

We look forward to you sharing your "evidence", thanks.

Re:Red state

[interval1066]

Yeah, that, and Tesla's sales cycle is a disruptive one, I think has someting to do with it.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

We look forward to you sharing your "evidence", thanks.

I tend to ignore people who can't be bothered to use google on their own, and instead ask for everything to be handed to them...

We're talking about half a century of gun control laws and increasing crime rates. There's no single link to ALL that information.

There's a few quick ones:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm (See #10)

http://www.liveandlocalenc.com/proof-gun-control-increases-crime/

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/do-strict-gun-laws-really-stop-gun-crime/

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/04/gun-crimes-increase-massachusetts-despite-tough-gun-laws/XjlDQLZlUDvsf3KS8PqyGK/story.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/06/25/stossel-argues-gun-control-increases-crime-i-was-once-clueless-senator-schumer

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4365189&cid=45212453

Re:Red state

[Stuarticus]

Nothing concrete in any of that, all spurious logic conveyed as fact. "More burglaries occur when someone is in the house " because of gun control? Baseless fearmongering.

Re:Red state

[vandamme]

..like where I live, in NY.

Re:Red state

[vandamme]

Conservativism died with William F. Buckley.

Re:Red state

[Hognoxious]

The mere existence of distributors sort of implies that sales are happening, or else there'd be nothing to distribute.

Are you referring to moonshiners and bootleggers?

Re:Red state

[Ixpath]

Those areas are mostly "red" counties within "blue" states. Even then, they are almost entirely semi-dry NOT dry.

Re: Red state

[Hognoxious]

And let's dig up all those interstate highways, switch off the internet and melt down them there new-fangled airy-planes.

They're not mentioned in the constitution either.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

It's all concrete facts. You can dismiss the arguments if you want, but you cant deny all the facts and figures, like DC's crime rate went up sharply under gun control.

Dismissing ALL of this extensive information out of hand just shows a MONUMENTAL bias on your part, and unwillingness of consider any challenging facts.

Re:Red state

[StormyWeather]

Congratulations, you win dumb ass of the thread award!

Re:Red state

[StormyWeather]

I don't like the bible law pushers any more than you, but you can't even buy big soda pops in NYC. So it's not just bible thumpers pushing stupid blue law shit around.

Re:Red state

[Hognoxious]

becasue

... then you'd know why I feel blue about beca ah ah becasue uue uee... /#

If the rolls were reversed

As always, its about bread.

I've met minerals smarter than you.

Re:Red state

[volmtech]

A little pork makes everyone feel better. "The most expensive is the estimated $3 billion now going to fund a dam project on the Ohio River, âoeportions of which flow through Illinois and Kentucky, states represented by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky,â ABC News reported."

Re:Red state

[kermidge]

Inasmuch as natural gas is usually produced as a by-product of oil getting (you do know that's what those flare pipes are for, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare) it's not really a stretch to use the term "oil company" in this context.

"As of the end of 2011, 150 × 109 cubic meters (5.3 × 1012 cubic feet) of associated gas are flared annually. That is equivalent to about 25 per cent of the annual natural gas consumption in the United States or about 30 per cent of the annual gas consumption in the European Union.[10] If it were to reach market, this quantity of gas (at a nominal value of $5.62 per 1000 cubic feet) would be worth $29.8 billion USD.[11]"

Further, a company can call itself any fucking thing so long as it's not done with provable intent to defraud. That many "former" oil companies invest in non-oil matters might be legitimately seen to give them let to call themselves "energy" companies and be quite correct in so doing doesn't belie that fact that their largest income is gotten directly from oil. Many of the erstwhile big oil companies invest in many forms of energy production and related infrastructure, from wind to photo-voltaics to geothermal, for instance. Sure, they're "energy companies" - they want to survive peak oil and the ridiculously short-sighted practice of using oil for transportation and such - but my personal wont is to call them oil companies until the bulk of their proceeds are gotten from non-oil stuff. Even then to me they're gonna remain the Seven Sisters [of Oil] that part-ruled the world for a century.

Re:Red state

[Stuarticus]

It's disingenous to suggest a gun control measure that affects a tiny part of an open country is indicative of any likely result of any future legislation that affects the whole of the nation. Where is the evidence of this sharp rise, where is proof of the correlation? The figures I see are totally inconclusive.

Re:Red state

[hairyfish]

By least efficient I think you mean most efficient. A bus takes up about 3x as much space and uses about 3x as much fuel as a car. The catch is they carry 100x as many people as your average car making them 30x more efficient overall. Oh and where I live we have dedicated bus lanes so any trip during rush hour is always quicker by bus than by car.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

It's disingenous to suggest a gun control measure that affects a tiny part of an open country is indicative of any likely result of any future legislation that affects the whole of the nation.

Now you're just blatantly moving the goal-posts... Neither you nor anyone else mentioned nation-wide regulations specifically.

However, there ARE plenty of examples of those as well:

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-statistics-cast-doubt-on-weapons-ban

Where is the evidence of this sharp rise, where is proof of the correlation?

I linked to many, and you're just playing dumb and pretending it's not there. You can use any of those as a jumping off point to get even more facts and figures. But of course, you don't WANT to do that, and would rather feign ignorance.

Re:Red state

[cpt kangarooski]

More efficient but not most efficient; electrified rail still beats it. But the difference in infrastructure costs means that the best solution is to use buses to move relatively small numbers of dispersed riders together to a rail station used by many more riders.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

No, you are playing the fool, posting links to opinion pieces. Just look at your links "...cast doubt on..." utter nonsense

Pretty much any news article is going to both provide facts and EXPLAIN what they mean. That does NOT make all news an opinion piece. The facts are black and white.

Someone already pointed to you the excellent Daily Show piece on the very successful results of the Australian ban

Australian gun crime rates were so low that the affect the crime rate since the restrictions are statistically insignificant at this point. It will take much more time to determine if the effects are real, or a short-term statistical anomaly that will swing the opposite way when the next mass-shooting happens there. That's what you get for using The Daily Show as a new source, when it is the real opinion piece.

But anything that disagrees with you...

Re:Red state

[RespekMyAthorati]

Ah, once again sumdumass wins the /. most-apt-user-name award!

Re:Red state

[shutdown -p now]

Or you could actually look directly at the stats, which show that, while "gun crime" went down, the overall homicide rate etc showed no correlation with the ban whatsoever at all.

Re:Red state

[sumdumass]

I understand that when you do not have facts and logic on your side, ad hominem attacks would be your only recourse left availible but seriously, was your point simply to troll or did you stay at a holiday inn express and think your uniteligent and pointless drivel actually added something to the discussion?

In other words, was your comment an attemp to discredit me like a third grader at recess or was there actually a point that wasn't simply intelectual dishonesty meeting with a desire to feel better about yourself?

Re:Red state

[Tom]

All your links seem to be about the USA, which is a very limited dataset.

World-wide, countries with fewer guns tend to have a lot fewer gun-related deaths, even if you remove accidents from the equation.

Some countries with lots of guns and high safety are that way because they keep their guns locked away - Switzerland, for example.

Why is the US a bad dataset? Because if you make guns illegal now, then for some time, maybe a decade or two, it will be true that criminals have guns (because they don't hand theirs in) while regular citizens don't (because they do).

But you need to think long-term, and when guns are difficult to get in general, most criminals won't have them, either. That's why you can't just outlaw them today and think everything will be fine, you need to come up with a transition plan.

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

World-wide, countries with fewer guns tend to have a lot fewer gun-related deaths, even if you remove accidents from the equation.

Some countries with lots of guns and high safety are that way because they keep their guns locked away - Switzerland, for example.

Of course GUN-related deaths go down with very few guns around, but that isn't interesting without overall crime rates. If we're just increasing stabbings more than we're reducing shootings, that incredible effort was entirely counter-productive.

And it's just circular logic to say that fewer guns is safer, except where lots of guns is also safe... but there's some other reason for that we won't bother to prove and which doesn't undermine our previous point.

But you need to think long-term, and when guns are difficult to get in general, most criminals won't have them, either. That's why you can't just outlaw them today and think everything will be fine, you need to come up with a transition plan.

I might believe that, if gun control attempts in the USA didn't consistently have the OPPOSITE effect in a large way. Crime rates go UP under gun bans, and go DOWN under relaxed concealed carry laws.

Re:Red state

[Tom]

And it's just circular logic to say that fewer guns is safer, except where lots of guns is also safe...

You missed the important part: It's not necessarily how many guns there are, but how they are dealt with.

I might believe that, if gun control attempts in the USA didn't consistently have the OPPOSITE effect in a large way. Crime rates go UP under gun bans, and go DOWN under relaxed concealed carry laws.

Again: What time-frame are you looking at?

I live in a country that has very strict gun laws, and has had them for 60+ years. It's almost impossible to get a gun here, and getting a permit even more so. There are also very, very few gun-related crimes. And no, it's like like there'd be a stabbing every day. I also live in a major city. If something happens with a gun involved, that's major headlines, simply because it's so rare.

Also, to counter your evidence:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/local/la-me-guns-crime-20130508

Re:Red state

[evilviper]

How do you believe that LATimes articles is counter evidence? Yes gun crime is down, but THERE IS PRACTICALLY NO GUN CONTROL IN PLACE right now. CA has some rules, but the assault weapons ban has been expired for many years. Show me what (new) gun control laws you think contributed to that, and get back to me...

Re:Red state

[Tom]

Uh, did you check the timeframe on that article? It's talking about decades of trend, not just a few years of recent changes.

Might not have the effect they want

[codepigeon]

In my armchair opinion, it seems like when you make something scarse and hard to get, people want it more (especially with the wealthy looking for status symbols). This might be good for Tesla sales.

Re:Might not have the effect they want

[khellendros1984]

This might be good for Tesla sales.

The car's "status symbol" status will be better for sales than if it weren't a status symbol, but I think that the difficulty in acquiring and maintaining one more than balances that out. I'm positive that they'd have stronger sales if buying one weren't such a pain in the ass.

Republicans love the free market!

[MetalliQaZ]

Oh wait... that would mean... err... *head explodes*

Relevant link: http://www.rootstrikers.org/

Texas means oil

[ArcadeMan]

Is that how free market is supposed to work? Corrupted government?

Re:Texas means oil

[berashith]

ya. It is really cute when the article flat out states that things wont change for Tesla until they buy more politicians. Sensibility, reasonableness, will of the people... all of these and more get left out in the cold until you pony up the big bucks.

Re:Texas means oil

[CanHasDIY]

ya. It is really cute when the article flat out states that things wont change for Tesla until they buy more politicians.

OK, so just sell off a couple of the CA politicians already in the stable, and use the money from that to purchase a TX Senator or two.

Re:Texas means oil

[cusco]

Absolutely. Adam Smith was adamant about the necessity of regulating business and preventing collusion among businessmen, but you'd never know it from the fulminations of the Libertardians. They pick and choose those sections of his work that they approve of and pretend the rest doesn't exist, rather like Christians who ignore Leviticus.

Re:Texas means oil

[omnichad]

Yes, because oil is mostly profitable when its byproducts are used as an engine lubricant.

Re:Texas means oil

[evilviper]

ya. It is really cute when the article flat out states that things wont change for Tesla until they buy more politicians. Sensibility, reasonableness, will of the people... all of these and more get left out in the cold until you pony up the big bucks.

Actually, money in politics is usually about buying "the people". Put out a slick commercial that airs on every channel, and you can get popular opinion on your side, and drag the politicians along with it...

Re:Texas means oil

[Sique]

Christians have it from their founder, that the Old Testament is superseded by the New one. So the ability to cherrypick the Septuaginta is actually built into the christian belief system.

Re:Texas means oil

[PRMan]

Christians are told to ignore Leviticus (except for sexual stuff mostly). It's in Acts 15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV if you would like to be enlightened.

Re:Texas means oil

[Ksevio]

Not sure how accurate it is, but TFA says:

The Texas legislature adjourned in June, and it will not reconvene until 2015.

So it looks more like NO government rather than corrupted.

Re:Texas means oil

[Tom]

You seem to think the USA is a free market country. It isn't. It's a capitalist country. While the two share certain similarities, they aren't the same thing.

Re:Texas means oil

[TheGratefulNet]

right. there's the first word of god (I don't believe, but some do). then they found that god was wrong, needed god version-2 and all was well again.

think about this, christians: if its so easy to negate one word of god, what makes you so sure YOUR version is perfect?

You can't have it.

[stewsters]

We aren't letting you have this car. Doesn't that make you want it more?

A Violation of the Sherman Act?

[LifesABeach]

When is a good Texan going to stand up a say, "Shit Howdy, come on in"? It looks like Texas is not as big a state as I remeber?

Streisand effect?

[Cyfun]

Seems to me Texas's efforts to hinder Tesla's sales only draws more attention to the brand. If they really wanted to hurt Tesla's sales, they'd buy a fleet of them for government vehicles, then constantly show them stalled along their highways due to Teslas' lack of range and the fact that their highways are some of the longest and loneliest stretches in the country.

Re:Streisand effect?

[omnichad]

then constantly show them stalled along their highways due to Teslas' lack of range and the fact that their highways are some of the longest and loneliest stretches in the country.

There are lots of two-vehicle families. It makes sense to get a special-purpose car for commuting for at least one of the two. You still have the other car for long trips.

Mini-Streisand effect...

[mlts]

I live about 2-3 miles from the Tesla service depot in Austin. One thing that seems to sell the vehicles is the fact that they are "so good, they had to be banned." Even with all the hoops one has to jump through, if one wants a runabout vehicle, a Tesla is hard to beat (assuming one can afford the ticket to entry.)

So, the prohibition on Tesla vehicles in Texas just makes people seem to want them more. Especially with the fact that in Austin, charging stations are popping up in odd but useful places, such as credit union parking lots.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[mythosaz]

As the owner of a Leaf, with a ~90 mile range (my range is about 90 anyway, YMWV), I can say that a Tesla is a bit more than a "runabout vehicle." We thought we'd have to make SERIOUS adjustments driving a Leaf in the far suburbs of Phoenix (we're 3+ miles to a gas station, and 10 miles from the nearest Freeway), but a few MINOR tweaks and we're golden -- and that's on half of the Tesla's range.

Yes, Texas is a big state, and it's not suitable for driving 100+ miles one way and then driving back unless you like gambling, but all it takes it a little planning to do all but the most extreme of driving for almost all users.

If you drive 200 miles every day, get a different car.
If you drive 200 miles every once in a while, rent a car for $30 a day, you saved that in Tesla "gas" alone yesterday.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[omnichad]

you saved that in Tesla "gas" alone yesterday.

If your Tesla replaces a vehicle that costs $30 to drive less than 200 miles, any other car would be a better option. Maybe you're saving $30 in a week, but not a day.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[mythosaz]

At $3.65/gal, a highly efficient car pays 10 cents a mile for gas, or about $20 for 200 miles.
At $3.65/gal, a car that gets 24 miles to the gallon (of which there are plenty), pays just over $30 to drive 200 miles.

Of course, since you likely paid about $0.02/mile for grid electricity (I'm paying 1.7 cents/mile for my electric car), that's not quite 30, so....

Congrats, you get your pedantic merit badge!

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[omnichad]

I guess gas is still high in a few places right now. I went off the $3.15 that's common here.

Congrats, you get your pedantic merit badge!

Yay!

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[mythosaz]

Texas does have some great gas prices, that's for sure.

Nationally, $3.60/gal this year is par for the course.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12411

My point was (and is still), however, that electric cars aren't merely for housewives who only pick up groceries on alternating Tuesdays. Electric car drivers, on the whole, don't have to do anything differently unless their daily drive is already outside the range of their car.

For those rare times when you're actually going to make long drives where recharging isn't an option, you can easily rent a car for a fee that's not much more than the gas savings you're already getting.

Sure. Electric cars are expensive, but it's a myth that they're "runabout vehicles."

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[lgw]

My car is similar to the Tesla in weight and power, and gets a bit less than 20 MPG, so it costs a bit more than $30 to drive 200 miles. Most cars in the class are similar (V8 luxury sedans). $30 was actually a pretty good number, and I've thought about the "Tesla + occasional rental" plan for my next car.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[omnichad]

the gas savings you're already getting.

As long as you were going to buy a luxury car anyway. Hard to get $60,000 in gas savings on a Tesla vs. a $10,000 used non-luxury car... And yes, that's pretty much apples to apples. A used Tesla would likely need a new $10k battery.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

$10,000 is what I paid for my previous car and by most standards it would have been considered a luxury car being a BMW 540i. It lasted until it the automatic transmission failed at 260,000 miles and got it with 101,000 miles on it so it had a good life that I probably substantially shortened by beating on that car (it was fun). A price point of $10,000 should get you a very nice used car especially since luxury brands seem to drop like rocks in resale value.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[mythosaz]

There are non-luxury electrics for half the price, the Leaf being the best example.

Your range is down to 90 or so (YMWV), but they're closing in on affordable...

Buying a $500 used taxi or a $2000 used Toyota/Nissan and driving it into the ground will likely continue to be the cheapest vehicle per mile - by far. That's what a couple of our cars were before the Leaf.

Cost of the vehicle included, we're paying about $0.28 per mile for our Leaf.
That's about the same as a 16mpg Crown Vic bought at auction for $500 for a year's worth of disposable service.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[AaronW]

The nice thing with the charging stations is usually I just avoid them with my model S. It's cheaper to charge at home. For driving around the Bay Area it's been great. I've used a few of the supercharger stations which have also been great. My only complaint is that they need more of them in more places. There aren't any heading north from the Bay Area and they need them in some more out of the way places like on the way to Yosemite or near Big Sur. The public charging stations are not all that useful when they only charge at 30 amps. That adds only about 18 miles of range per hour. Plus it seems all of the public spots are taken up by Leafs or Volts. The one time I really needed a public charger due to using a bit more energy on a camping trip I ended up having to unplug a Volt so I could charge in Monterey to reach the Gilroy supercharger. The funny thing is that with the Volt it was more expensive to charge at the public charging station than to use gasoline.

For driving around the Bay Area and where Superchargers are available it has been great. I just wish they would build more of them faster.

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger shows where they plan to install them.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[mlts]

Austin has a supercharger station between it and San Antonio, and another between it and Dallas. Now, if they can locate that in the city proper, it would be quite useful.

Another place where superchargers are needed is the I-10 route from El Paso. I don't know how any Tesla can make it in/out of the state on that route, barring pulling over and trickle charging on a motel's 110 volt circuit.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[AaronW]

It looks like they have plans to build out there eventually from their map at http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger. In-town chargers are not needed as much generally since usually you can charge at home and hopefully more and more hotels will start offering places to charge.

Re:Mini-Streisand effect...

[Darinbob]

The point of electric cars is not about saving money, but about saving gas. Even if the total cost of ownership is higher.
Now there are drawbacks of course, saving gasoline does not necessarily save the environment as you're saddled with a lot of toxic batteries (a really big problem in Tesla's case). Hybrids to me seem like a good alternative, which is about making the entire automobile much more efficient, providing feedback to the driver in order to drive move efficiently, and so forth. Pure electric is nice but I think we're many years away from also having environmentally friendly batteries, a way to recycle them, and more alternative methods to generate the electricity. In that sense Tesla is still a good idea in that it is paving the way.

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[mc6809e]

That car looks pretty cool and sounds (no sound?) cool too. The guy finally turned at a side street and pushed the pedal a bit. This thing sure seems to have torque.

That's the great thing about electric motors: max torque is at zero Km/h.

1000 new medals please

[girlintraining]

So how have 1,000 Model S cars been sold? That would be sheer persistence.

Can I buy one just to drive it through the doors of their capitol and park it on top of the assholes who passed all these laws while screaming "ASSHOLES ARE BIGGER IN TEXAS TOO!" I know I'd probably be riddled full of bullets and called a terrorist, but for those 30 glorious seconds, I think I would be a working class hero. :(

In other news; We should start putting warning labels on everything that comes from Texas, including the people: "Warning: This product is known to cause stupidity in every other state but Texas." (with a tip of the hat to another state, whose stupidity created similarily named labels). And now, moderators who live in those two states... fire up the 'overrated' and 'troll' buttons, and I apologize I kept you waiting so long. :P

Re:1000 new medals please

[RKThoadan]

I think you have a great idea for a T-Shirt or Bumper Sticker there.

Re:1000 new medals please

[SJHillman]

Warning: The State of Texas is known to the State of Californian to contain regular unleaded.

Re:1000 new medals please

[wulfhere]

Perhaps with a picture of the goatse.cx guy on the front.

Re:1000 new medals please

[CanHasDIY]

In other news; We should start putting warning labels on everything that comes from Texas, including the people: "Warning: This product is known to cause stupidity in every other state but Texas."

Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.

Aye, the street! She runs both ways!

Re:1000 new medals please

[girlintraining]

Yeah, really, what's with people these days? Can't even murder civilians for political purposes without getting labeled a terrorist.

Once again, my sarcasm has become so advanced that it stupifies people. First, you could never get a car through the door. I know Texas lawmakers are pretty fat, but even at that, a car is still wider by a small margin. Second, and I only half-joke on this... politicans aren't civilians. While I don't advocate violence, killing politicians or agents of the government doesn't meet the actual definition of terrorism (not the current political definition which is basically "anything we disagree with"): They are, in fact, legitimate military targets. If China decided to invade us and bombed Washington DC, that wouldn't be a war crime. Leaders are legitimate targets. As well... I don't think very many Americans would be terribly upset it a bunch of idiot lawmakers died. Not that I'm advocating it, but about the only thing less loved by the working class than politicians are rapists, murderers, and people who drive slow in the fast lane. Just food for thought.

Because any plan whose first step is "buy a $70,000 luxury car" is sure to turn out that way.

Ordinarily, yes, but when step two is: "Destroy car in epic fashion" I think people may be willing to make an exception.

What you should apologize for is lying in an attempt to avoid downmods that you know you deserve.

Says the guy posting as anonymous coward. I earned my +2 and I'm willing to risk it to make jokes and frivolity, while you're too cowardly to risk making controversial statements that might cost you yours. Your statement says more about you than it does about me; You ought to be apologizing... for a lack of spine.

Re:1000 new medals please

[hondo77]

Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.

Yes because there is absolutely no private gun ownership in California. Handguns and AK-47s are nowhere to be seen here, yep! Hunters beware because you won't get to shoot your precious game in the Golden State, no siree.</sarcasm>

Are you completely stupid?

Re:1000 new medals please

[CanHasDIY]

Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.

Yes because there is absolutely no private gun ownership in California. Handguns and AK-47s are nowhere to be seen here, yep! Hunters beware because you won't get to shoot your precious game in the Golden State, no siree.</sarcasm>

Go buy a brand new AR-15 with detachable 15-round magazine, then. Oh, wait, you can't, because both have been banned. According to CNN, you can't even buy magazine rebuild kits anymore.

Are you completely stupid?

Obviously not - are you completely incapable of having a disagreement with someone without resorting to personal attacks? Only time can tell.

Re:1000 new medals please

[Daetrin]

"(with a tip of the hat to another state, whose stupidity created similarily named labels). And now, moderators who live in those two states... fire up the 'overrated' and 'troll' buttons, and I apologize I kept you waiting so long."

Wait, do you honestly think you're going to find anyone from California who's eager to defend the Prop 65 signs? At least i presume that's what you're talking about. I started saying a long time ago that they should just start posting signs at every border crossing, airport and port: "This State contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm." It would cover all the bases and save us a lot of trouble.

I sometimes wonder if the creation of that proposition was actually a very clever black op by the people most liable to lawsuits from _actual_ contamination. Now they can put up signs to get out from the legal liability without anyone paying any attention to them because everyone else has the same sign out front.

Re:1000 new medals please

[Alioth]

An AR-15 for personal protection? Why would you buy one of them for personal protection? Not much use for concealed carry, and for home defense a pump action shotgun is much more useful.

Re:1000 new medals please

[dave420]

Oh noes! The poow widdle man can't buy his assault rifle for "self protection". Jeez. Grow up already. You're like a tragic stuck record bleating on about some point the adults just don't (quite rightly) care about.

Re:1000 new medals please

[CanHasDIY]

Oh noes! The poow widdle man can't buy his assault rifle for "self protection". Jeez. Grow up already.

Ha, irony is funny.

Seriously, bro, if you can't make your argument without being a childish dick about it, you probably don't have an argument worth making.

Re:1000 new medals please

[CanHasDIY]

An AR-15 for personal protection? Why would you buy one of them for personal protection?

Well, I wouldn't, because I don't like AR-15's.

depending on the situation, I would consider an AK-47 for the same purpose; contrary to what randomly-shooting-a-shotgun vice presidents might say, not all personal protection scenarios are created equal.

To that end, I live in bear/mountain lion country. To anyone else who shares their home region with apex predators, I think that says it all.

Re:1000 new medals please

[hairyfish]

In your state can I buy a nuclear weapon for personal protection? Why not?

Re:1000 new medals please

[CanHasDIY]

In your state can I buy a nuclear weapon for personal protection? Why not?

Why is it that anti-Second Amendment anarchists always go straight to the ad hominems and reductio ad absurdums?

Seriously. Come up with some better arguments. Like, maybe ones that aren't complete nonsense.

But to answer your question, no. You can't buy a Lear jet, either, but I won't use that as an example, because I understand that it's completely batshit insane to bring such a reference into a conversation about car buying laws.

Re:1000 new medals please

[hairyfish]

Seriously. Come up with some better arguments. Like, maybe ones that aren't complete nonsense.

How is it nonsense? A nuclear weapon is covered by the second amendment is is not? You only call it nonsense because it exposes the flaw in your logic. The right to bear arms is clearly ends when the arms are sufficiently powerful enough to cause too much damage. The question is where you you draw the line? Clearly you agree with Nuclear weapons? How about a Tomahawk cruise missle? Sidewinder A2AM? Gau-8? M134? AK47? We both seem to agree that there is a line in there somewhere, you just refuse to admit it.

MYOB

[whizbang77045]

How we chose to run our state is our business. Period. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Re:MYOB

[mwvdlee]

How we chose to run our state is our business. Period. If you don't like it, go start an oil company and run our state for us.

FTFY.

Re:MYOB

[ourcraft]

I can only assume this is snark, bait.

Re:MYOB

[Borg453b]

Translation: "-Our- business cannot handle -your- business without "special treatment"" ;)

Protectionism. Lets see how that works out for you in the long run.

Re:MYOB

[Anonymous Coward]

How we chose to run our state is our business. Period.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution says otherwise. Until Texas grows a pair half as big as its mouth and actually secedes, it can use that purty big mouth to suck it.

So how have 1,000 Model S cars been sold?

[geekoid]

The Internet? Going to another state?
Really it's an expensive car. You could fly to Ca. order it and have it delivered.

Just a guess.

"libertarians" against fair competition

[globaljustin]

the GOP in Texas is a criminal organization like the mafia....Tesla wouldn't pay the 'protection' fee...

any equivocation belies ignorance...if you are a "libertarian" you must criticize this and oppose the Republicans who did it

from TFA:

The current iron-clad Texas franchise law is the result of years of lobbying by the powerful and well-connected Texas Auto Dealers Association (TADA), founded and run for 30 years by legendary Texas lobbyist Gene Fondren.

In 2012, dealership interests "invested" more than $2.5 million in the Texas legislative elections, according to the the watchdog group Texans For Public Justice. Sixty percent of Texas lawmakers received checks from TADA in 2012.Two elderly billionaire car dealers, Tom Friedkin and Red McCombs--the latter is also chairman of the former Blackwater security firm--kicked in more than a million dollars between them.

Re:"libertarians" against fair competition

[intermodal]

Actually, the Texaxs libertarians (both big and small L) are going to be against this stuff as a matter of course. I know of very few establishment Republicans who actually claim to be libertarians. Misleading subject line is misleading.

Re:"libertarians" against fair competition

[geekoid]

except it happened after he served.
So irrelevant. He also lobbied to the rail industry and lobbied for seat belts.

The fact remain, right now, the GOP is like a criminal organization in Texas.

The 1963 Dem and Pubs are not the same as the 2013 Dems and Pubs.

I'm so sick of political ignorant fucktwads like you.

Re:"libertarians" against fair competition

[Specter]

Interstate commerce. Normally I'm all for state's rights, but this is one area where there's actually a Constitutional basis to tell the State to get bent.

Republican party

[wiredlogic]

This is what you get from the Republican party's pro-business, minimal government policies... pro-entrenched business that is.

Re:Republican party

[SteveDorries]

Explain how this is minimal government please.

Re:Republican party

[CanHasDIY]

Recalibrate your sarcasm detector, bro.

Re:Republican party

[chill]

It would probably be more useful if someone explained sarcasm instead.

Re:Republican party

[UnknowingFool]

Er?

pro-entrenched business that is

His point was that GOP is all about minimal government unless it threatens entrenched businesses. When it comes to minimal government that affects people especially poor people, screw 'em.

Re:Republican party

[Hognoxious]

Going out on a limb here, I think that's his point.

But I might be wrong. Us Limeys are terrible at sarcasm.

Oh, america

[lesincompetent]

... the country that legalized bribery.

Re:Oh, america

[CanHasDIY]

... the country that legalized bribery.

Most American law is based on English common law, so... not so much.

The Brits came up with the concept, we just streamlined the process :)

Re:Oh, america

[asylumx]

The Brits came up with the concept, we just streamlined the process :)

By privatizing it, right? From what I read around here, the free market does everything better!

Re:Oh, america

[CanHasDIY]

The Brits came up with the concept, we just streamlined the process :)

By privatizing it, right? From what I read around here, the free market does everything better!

If such a thing as a free market ever existed, that is possible; however, since it hasn't, and probably never will exist, we can only speculate.

Re:Oh, america

[dave420]

Well done! You made a post without crying about guns and (inadvertently) telling everyone how you're scared to live without them.

Re:Oh, america

[CanHasDIY]

Whatever you've got to tell yourself to gets through your day, stoner.

Re:Oh, america

[asylumx]

You know my post was a sarcastic comment about privatizing bribery, right?

Re:Oh, america

[CanHasDIY]

Yup.

Legislature

[InsaneMosquito]

"The Texas legislature adjourned in June, and it will not reconvene until 2015." Buwah?!

Re:Legislature

[jittles]

"The Texas legislature adjourned in June, and it will not reconvene until 2015." Buwah?!

I do not live in TExas, but I have a relative that lives there in Austin. My understanding is that the TX legislature, by law, can only meet every 2 years (barring some emergency session). It is also my understanding that the representatives must pay their own costs out of pocket if they fail to pass a budget. This helps avoid a lot of the knee-jerk legislation we see in other states. They also have a financial incentive to keep the state's government humming along. While there are many things I dislike about Texas, I do think they have some good ideas on how to govern a state.

Also these "Anti-Tesla" laws they keep talking about in the news have existed long before Tesla was a gleam in Elon Musk's eye. Tesla was just denied when it tried to push through a law that would grant it, and no other car manufacturer, an exception to the dealership franchise laws in Texas. These laws are not unique to Texas, either.

Re:Legislature

[ClickOnThis]

"The Texas legislature adjourned in June, and it will not reconvene until 2015." Buwah?!

My understanding is that the TX legislature, by law, can only meet every 2 years (barring some emergency session). It is also my understanding that the representatives must pay their own costs out of pocket if they fail to pass a budget. This helps avoid a lot of the knee-jerk legislation we see in other states. They also have a financial incentive to keep the state's government humming along. While there are many things I dislike about Texas, I do think they have some good ideas on how to govern a state.

You may think Texas has "good ideas on how to govern a state" but I don't see any in your post.

Withholding pay from legislators for a delay in passing a budget may seem like poetic justice, but I would argue it promotes legislators to rush the budget through, encouraging the very "knee-jerk" behavior you claim it prevents.

And a forced hibernation of the legislature until 2015 most certainly does not sound like a good way to govern a state. Rather. it sounds like a way to avoid governing it.

Re:Legislature

[jittles]

You may think Texas has "good ideas on how to govern a state" but I don't see any in your post.

Withholding pay from legislators for a delay in passing a budget may seem like poetic justice, but I would argue it promotes legislators to rush the budget through, encouraging the very "knee-jerk" behavior you claim it prevents.

They aren't just withheld pay - they are have to pay the salary of the staffers, pay for any food or hotel costs, etc. They have long enough sessions that a budget can realistically be created. It encourages bipartisan collaboration, compromise, and all of the other things you do not see in the rest of the US. Texas is also very fiscally responsible, so I'd say they are doing a good job. And my knee-jerk legislation comment refers to laws being passed to address the top news story of the week, not budgeting in particular.

And a forced hibernation of the legislature until 2015 most certainly does not sound like a good way to govern a state. Rather. it sounds like a way to avoid governing it.

One of the biggest problems in the US is the fact that there are so many laws being passed that no one can keep them all straight. Not to mention the fact that, barring emergency circumstances I doubt that we need someone passing laws 36-46 weeks out of the year (if our US reps actually spend even that much time working).

Buying a Tesla S

[Anonymous Coward]

- Hey man, what's the deal?
- We have a little bit of everything... weed, meth, heroin... what do ya want?
- What about a Tesla S?
- Shhhhhh! Don't speak so loudly... come with me...

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[TheHappyMailAdmin]

Dealerships are car retailers, they purchase the car form the manufacturer and resell to you. Tesla is eliminating the middleman and operating it's own stores, so purchasing a Tesla is always direct from the manufacturer purchase.

Wouldn't have hurt Diet Mtn Dew

[tepples]

Bad example. If you're thinking of the New York City soft drink size limit, that would have applied to soft drinks with caloric sweeteners, not diet soft drinks. All that would have meant is that restaurants would start carrying a larger selection of diet sodas, not just the diet version of the cola. I miss fountain Diet Mtn Dew.

Re:Wouldn't have hurt Diet Mtn Dew

[CanHasDIY]

Bad example. If you're thinking of the New York City soft drink size limit, that would have applied to soft drinks with caloric sweeteners, not diet soft drinks.

Indeed; if OP really wanted to point out an example of how New York State can be just as draconian and anti-freedom as the Texas example above, he'd have been better off to cite the 4 NY Senators who, back in 2011, insisted that the First Amendment be relegated from a right to a privilege.

Re:Wouldn't have hurt Diet Mtn Dew

[JeffAtl]

Other than the fact that a suggestion is not an enforceable law...

It has that effect though. Unless a person has the resources to defend themselves, laws are what law enforcement says they are. Try to cite Bill of Rights protections to law enforcement and they either assume you're a nut or part of a militia.

Even if defendants ultimately prevail, the damage has been done and a chilling effect is almost always created.

Re:Wouldn't have hurt Diet Mtn Dew

[CanHasDIY]

Except that's not accurate. They released a report and the report sys that, I could find an instance of either the names of the alleged senators, not any effort to make 1st amendment a privilege.

Should've maybe taken 5 seconds to actually read the article I linked to:

The report, “Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age” was published in September by the Independent Democratic Conference. This group includes Democratic NY State Senators David Valesky, David Carlucci, Diane Savino, and Jeff Klein.

Re:Wouldn't have hurt Diet Mtn Dew

[elashish14]

They also have that stop and frisk/abuse/violate law. Hard to imagine one more anti-freedom than that.

Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[mrchaotica]

What gives Texas the authority to prevent any manufacturer -- of cars or otherwise -- from selling their products in the state? Couldn't this be construed as an illegal restraint of trade against the State of California?

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[mythosaz]

Ostensibly, this is to prevent monopolies.

It's why Sony and MGM don't have theaters in Texas, but instead have to lease their films to movie houses. Sorry, you can only see the Disney movie at the Disney theater, at Disney prices.

In reality, it's to make sure that a middle-man gets a juicy cut of the sales.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[CanHasDIY]

What gives Texas the authority to prevent any manufacturer -- of cars or otherwise -- from selling their products in the state? Couldn't this be construed as an illegal restraint of trade against the State of California?

That... doesn't seem right.

By the same logic, California has an illegal restraint of trade against any state that manufactures certain firearms and firearm accessories, and most states would have an illegal restraint of trade against Colorado by not allowing CO pot growers to sell there.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[OhPlz]

Slightly ironic given that vehicles sold in CA have to conform to the state's own emission requirements.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[mrchaotica]

By the same logic, California has an illegal restraint of trade against any state that manufactures certain firearms and firearm accessories...

I don't know what California's gun laws are like, but maybe that's true too!

...and most states would have an illegal restraint of trade against Colorado by not allowing CO pot growers to sell there

No, because the laws preventing interstate sale of marijuana are Federal. (They may still be unconstitutional, but not because of the Interstate Commerce Clause.)

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sorry, you can only see the Disney movie at the Disney theater, at Disney prices.

Awesome, I could just boycott the whole theatre while enjoying movies at the other theatre without having to read the poster to see who the distributor is.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[qeveren]

I'm kind of shocked the Fed haven't gotten in on this silliness, what with this being inter-state trade and all...

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[mrchaotica]

Well, preventing monopolies is a good thing in my book, but the monopoly would have to be over cars in general -- a manufacturer choosing to sell it's own product only directly is not a monopoly by definition, unless it's the only company in the entire industry (and the product is important enough to cause hardship if the customers can't buy it).

Besides, every other product is sold in normal third-party stores and may also be available straight from the manufacturer -- I just don't understand why it's magically different for cars. I mean, if I'm selling some widget over the Internet (maybe even something as trivial as a sweater on Etsy or something), do I have to first wholesale it to some third-party distributor in Texas? If not, why are the rules different Tesla?

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[mythosaz]

I didn't say it made any sense.

I said that was the rationale.

Or, if you prefer, the line of bullshit the auto-dealer lobby foisted on Texas.

It's not too nutty on the surface, but a quick inspection reveals it's so you can sneak in a middle-man who serves no useful purpose.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[squiggleslash]

No.

This isn't a law against Tesla, electric cars, or anything else. It's a law about how a car manufacturer is supposed to work with the public, eg through independently owned dealerships.

Nobody (except the dealers) in the car industry likes these laws, but they're not discriminatory per se. They just suck.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[MiniMike]

By the same logic, California has an illegal restraint of trade against any state that manufactures certain firearms and firearm accessories, and most states would have an illegal restraint of trade against Colorado by not allowing CO pot growers to sell there.

No, you're confusing the product versus the method of sale. Pot is illegal to own in most states, regardless of how it was obtained. Same for certain firearms. Teslas are not illegal to own in Texas (yet). They just want to make sure their local middleman gets a nice payoff when you buy one.

It still may be illegal restraint of trade, but these examples don't demonstrate how.

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[mrchaotica]

It's a law about how a car manufacturer is supposed to work with the public, eg through independently owned dealerships.

Right. And my question is "why are car manufacturers different than everything else?" Is Apple not allowed to operate Apple Stores in Texas? Is Sears not allowed to sell Craftsman or Kenmore in Texas? Is Wal-Mart not allowed to sell Great Value brand products in Texas?

If all of these things are allowed, then car manufacturers (including not just Tesla, but the likes of Ford, VW and Toyota too) should also be able to operate corporate-owned stores in Texas. And contrapositively, if it's OK to disallow it for cars, then it should be OK to disallow it for any of the other things previously mentioned (a reductio ad absurdum, obviously).

Re:Or the Interstate Commerce Clause?

[sjames]

Exactly. The key is that since none of the independents can get a Disney movie from anywhere but Disney, you will pay Disney prices anyway.

why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[alen]

lots of new automakers set up dealerships in the USA in the last 30 years?

its a $80,000 car, not a blu ray player. this is something you want to buy in person

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Lots of independent dealers started selling cars that are new to the market. There are a couple of exceptions, but as a rule, auto manufacturers are prohibited by law from owning dealerships in the US. They must use an independent 3rd-party retailer to sell to the public.

Tesla is TRYING to set up dealerships and is being thwarted by insane regulation.

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[Kingkaid]

Dealerships are "arms-length" from the car maker (in theory). This prevents them from price fixing and encourages competition (in theory). Tesla wants to run these themselves rather than put a 3rd party in the middle. I've been to a Tesla store and it was amazing, stupid protectionist laws.

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[cusco]

Their business model is sell direct to the customer. I suppose they could set up a "dealership" model where the salescritters are Tesla employees and the dealership marks the price up $1, but then the Texas Dealership Association (or whatever its called) would probably make membership in their club mandatory, or set a minimum limit for markup, or some other obstruction. Essentially a small group of dealers own all the dealerships in the state, they don't want anyone trespassing on 'their' territory.

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[romanval]

Because Texas law states that auto dealerships must be independently owned and operated from the auto manufacturer-- (a dealer franchise just has an agreement to sell a particular car... but they still have no ties to the manufacturer.)

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[UnknowingFool]

Yes and no. The dealerships have effectively enacted laws that exclude all competition. So yes, Tesla doesn't want to follow the laws, but the laws forbid them from selling direct to consumers. It is essentially a cartel that has been legalized. There are all sorts of industries that have been protected this way in Texas. For example, until recently, breweries had to choose between direct selling to consumers or through distributors but not both. These laws were designed to protect large national breweries and limit competition from smaller, local breweries.

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[M. Baranczak]

You're telling us that Ford was able to cut their prices by eliminating the middlemen, and THE PEOPLE rose up to put a stop to this?

Re:why can't tesla set up dealerships?

[UnknowingFool]

You know, the exact shit Tesla is trying to do, while complaining that it is somehow unfair. They are the ones who are being unfair, by refusing to sell their cars to independent dealerships.

Um no. Tesla doesn't want a middleman. Period. It's not about undercutting the dealership; they don't want them. And the dealerships don't want competition. Seriously if Dell had to sell computers through Best Buy instead of direct, would you still raise same arguments?

Re:IDIOTS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You do realize that execution is a hobby in Texas, don't you?

The White Plague

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody really needs to figure out a fatal virus that kills hypocrites.

Re:The White Plague

[Anonymous Coward]

Right after all the Republicans!

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[mosb1000]

That's a company store. A dealership is an "independent" third party that also takes a cut of the sale. I don't know how they rationalize requiring car manufacturers to sell through a dealer. If it continues to happen, it will become a big election issue because the model S is one of the most highly reviewed cars and they're trying to stop Texans from buying them.

a mockery of the USA

[schlachter]

this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools.
how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?

Re:a mockery of the USA

[CanHasDIY]

this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools.
how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?

Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.

Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?

Re:a mockery of the USA

[rsborg]

this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools.
how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?

Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.

Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?

I would be willing to bet you that a majority of the populace in CA wouldn't like that agreement, while a majority of the people in TX would like it just fine.

Teslas used properly don't kill people. Assault firearms used properly DO kill people, that's what they're made for.

Re:a mockery of the USA

[CanHasDIY]

this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools.
how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?

Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.

Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?

I would be willing to bet you that a majority of the populace in CA wouldn't like that agreement, while a majority of the people in TX would like it just fine.

Teslas used properly don't kill people. Assault firearms used properly DO kill people, that's what they're made for.

Let me guess: you're one of those people who have been convinced that "semi-automatic," "military-style," and "assault weapon" all mean the same thing, aren't you?

Yea, they aren't.

For the record, I have several firearms, some of the "assault" variety (in that they are semi-auto and have scary black synthetic stocks), firearms which I use properly on a regular basis, and yet not a single one of them have ever so much as grazed another human being.

Besides, if "assault weapons" were designed specifically for killing humans, than they obviously are not used properly, since less humans are killed with "assault weapons" than fists. Even more humans are killed by cars, and since a Tesla is a car... you get where I'm going with this.

But I digress; the point isn't the intended use of the product, the point is commercial reciprocity: if you're going to make a fuss about TX laws regarding the sale of Tesla cars, you'd be a hypocrite to not make a similar fuss about CA's laws regarding the sale of certain firearms.

Re:a mockery of the USA

[beckett]

how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?

I can appreciate this sentiment, but "I can't buy the luxury car of my choice" is not the same type of freedom as, "go to school, get shot in the face."

Re:a mockery of the USA

[schlachter]

well...I don't think the US troops shot that many kids on their way to school as collateral damage while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan...I hear it was just a few thousand of the 100K civilians we killed. Oh, wait, that's not what you were referring to.

Re:a mockery of the USA

[schlachter]

democracy. our most deadly export.

Re:a mockery of the USA

[hairyfish]

But I digress; the point isn't the intended use of the product,

Yes it is. Intended use is exactly what it is. You can't compare a law designed to reduce murder rates, to laws designed protect a a private company's profit margins.

the point is commercial reciprocity: if you're going to make a fuss about TX laws regarding the sale of Tesla cars, you'd be a hypocrite to not make a similar fuss about CA's laws regarding the sale of certain firearms.

That makes no sense whatsoever and shows just how looney the gun argument is. Why do you think it is that out of the entire western world, only a handful of nutbags in the deepest darkest parts of third world USA think guns are great? Everyone else seems to get by fine without them, what make you so different?

Re:a mockery of the USA

[beckett]

correct. I was referring to the disproportionate definitions of 'freedom' when you compare an actual war with not being able to buy an electric car. Your statement is non sequitor.

Iraq and Afganistan have nothing to do with being able to buy a Tesla in Texas.

Re:IDIOTS

[MetalliQaZ]

They can't inhibit speech protected by the first amendment, however they CAN legislate trade and commerce. For example, we already have laws that prohibit false advertising without first amendment issues. If the companies display the logo, they will be fined under the law.

NOLA

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I'm pretty sure they sell these things in New Orleans and Santa Fe. I realize that it is a hassle to buy a car in one state and re-license it in another, but I have done it myself. It's not too hard.

Re:NOLA

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The nice thing about buying in Oregon and licensing in California is that Oregon has no sales tax. You do have to buy the CA smogged car, if buying new.

Re:Holy Fucking Shit

[Russ1642]

The point is that there shouldn't be any laws about having to have independent car dealerships.

They aren't jumping through hoops...

[ruiner13]

They are jumping through coils. Tesla coils...

Tesla's in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Texas, but they have some of the worst legislature and blue laws in the nation. Two taht come to mind frmo my days living in San Antonio:

Burger King came into San Antonio back in the early 80's, but there was already a burger chain in San Antonio called Whopper Burger which was locally owned. During the ensuing 2 year legal battle by BK, they had stores but they had no signs. It looked like a BK, but it couldn't say Burger King anywhere because the local chains big burger was called the King Whopper. You'd go to the unmarked BK drive through and order a Whopper and they would say "sir, we don't have them, we call them a Deluxe"! THey even had to wrap it in clear plactic because the BK wrapper had Whopper or Bruger or King onit! Talk about stupid. BK finally won and bought out the other chain.

Then there were the blue laws, where you could go to the store on Sunday but not buy certain things. You could by a hammer at Home Depot, but you couldn't buy the nails on Sunday. Batteries! You could buy a battery opreated device, but not the batteries, on Sunday. My car died and I needed to buy a new battery but could not becasue it was sunday, I hade to jump start or leave it running until midnight, then go to the 24 autoparts place and get one at 12:01 in th morning! You could buy baby formula, but not diapers. Insane! The would even rope of the sections in the stores with hanners that read "never on a Sunday". I once picked up a small package of nails at a 7=11 and the cleark told me taht he could sell them to me and if I persitied he would have to call the cops, but you could buy beer!

Re:Tesla's in Texas

[omnichad]

You could buy a battery operated device, but not the batteries, on Sunday

Are there really that many Orthodox Jews in Texas? I can't think of any other reason to get that crazy. On the other hand, I don't buy materials for any project the same day I do it.

Re:Tesla's in Texas

[Yosho]

Then there were the blue laws, where you could go to the store on Sunday but not buy certain things.

Some of those laws are gone, but some of them are still around. Grocery stores can't sell liquor, and they can't sell any alcohol before noon on Sunday. That really confused a friend of mine the first time he needed to get some cooking sherry on a Sunday morning.

Remember, the Republican party is pro-business! Unless your business is doing something they find morally objectionable.

Re:Tesla's in Texas

[mark_reh]

When I lived in Plano a friend who worked in a grocery store told me that sales of Listerine went through the roof on Sundays because they couldn't sell booze on Sunday.

Re:Tesla's in Texas

[whoever57]

You could by a hammer at Home Depot, but you couldn't buy the nails on Sunday. Batteries! You could buy a battery opreated device, but not the batteries,

The UK used to have similar restrictions, but the reverse: you could buy perishable items, but not non-perishable. So you could buy nails but not the hammer.

But, consider Playboy vs. a copy of the BIble: which is perishable and which is not? Yes, on a Sunday, you could buy Playboy but not a copy of the Bible!

Re:Tesla's in Texas

[mishehu]

Sunday is a normal work day to orthodox Judaism. Perhaps you are thinking of those other people who deliberately changed the day of rest from its original day and make up at least the [secular] majority of this country... additionally, I am unfamiliar with any such restrictions on the sale of anything normally legal to sell on Sunday besides alcoholic beverages in my region.

Re:Tesla's in Texas

[omnichad]

I'm just trying to find some wacky justification for such a ridiculous blue law. Nobody else I can think of has any problem with a battery-operated device doing work on any day of the week.

How did Saturn do it?

[EmagGeek]

Wasn't Saturn a direct-sales manufacturer before the failure and GM buyout? How did they sell cars in Texas, or did they?

Re:How did Saturn do it?

[MiniMike]

Wasn't Saturn a direct-sales manufacturer before the failure and GM buyout?

No. It was just another nameplate like Pontiac or Oldsmobile, but with more independent management or more design freedom- don't recall the details.

How did they sell cars in Texas, or did they?

At regular dealers, like every other GM brand.

Re:How did Saturn do it?

[PRMan]

My wife's cousin's husband owned a Saturn dealership, so I can assure you they were privately owned.

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[tepples]

It's not a "dealership" under Texas law because it's owned by the manufacturer, and "dealerships" under Texas law are franchises.

Re:Holy Fucking Shit

[sycodon]

Then change that law. Bitch about that law. Don't go around spouting bullshit about Tesla being some singled out victim.

If GM wanted to adopt the same sales model as Tesla, they'd have the same problem.

If true

[koan]

It's entirely illegal whether Texas made it legal or not.

Doesn't this come under interfering with interstate commerce?

I would totally use this in an ad campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

Show the car driving past the pumpjacks. Show a hapless Texan wearing the stereotypical cowboy hat, oily grime on his face, look of disgust. Voice-over, "the car he doesn't want you to have".

Better but perhaps not possible due to licensing issues: recycled clips of JR Ewing from the old TV show "Dallas" in a rage, with the same voice-over.

But, but... the local dealerships sponsor football!!! voice-over: Football gives you brain damage. Tesla. Don't give your kids brain-damage.

OK, that last one is too much culture shock for Texas. Maybe in 20 years.

What diet soda ban other than NYC?

[tepples]

Where did he even specify "diet soft drinks"?

AC specified that a Democratic state banned large sodas, appearing to have made an attempt at a tu quoque argument. The only such ban that I'm aware of is the New York proposal, and Wikipedia's article about this ban cites sources stating that this proposal would not have applied to diet sodas. Thus the argument is weak even as a tu quoque. If you're aware of another example of a ban on large sodas in another Democratic state, I'm willing to discuss it.

Classic hypocrisy

[Dega704]

I love how political extremists on the right run around screaming "LEAVE BUSINESSES ALONE!", and then proceed to pass laws that discriminate against specific businesses; albeit ones that aren't chummy enough with the right people.

simple but painful solution.

[nimbius]

stop endorsing and contributing to this state, and its legislature, which clearly hasnt represented its citizens for quite some time. that is unless you consider outlawing abortion and praying for rain to be central priorities of the majority of proud texans.

i know, most texans cant do this. for those of us who can, the ones without a kid or a wife or a house, and free purchase to roam america, maybe its time you did. Spend a few years in the parts outside the panhandle state like colorado, or arizona or even god forbid california and see that its not so bad. No ones saying you cant fly in and visit every once and a while, but dont sit patiently and wait for things like the future of automotive purchase to arrive when the senate can barely acclimate itself to gay marriage and evolution. California and Denver have public transit systems that might make you consider an even greener alternative alltogether: getting rid of your automobile.

This is a perfect example of America's hypocrisy

[kawabago]

Business can buy whatever laws they want, even ones like these that hurt the majority of the population. The politicians that approved these Texas laws are the enemies of the people of Texas.

Don't tread on me

[orgelspieler]

Tesla should adopt the Gadsden flag as their unofficial logo in Texas. Then they should run an ad campaign about how government regulation and lobbyists are hurting small business owners and stripping individuals of their freedom to choose a vehicle. It would surely drive up sales amongst Tea Party types here. Just don't tell them it's good for the environment.

Re:Don't tread on me

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a consumer protection requirement, it's a dealer protection requirement. Useless middlemen fully deserving of our hate and scorn. Someone should sue in frederal court.

Re:IDIOTS

[qeveren]

Silly thing. Commerce == Money == Free Speech. This is America!

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[geekoid]

Let do 100 miles and see who crosses the finish line first.

I'm sorry sir...

[RivenAleem]

I'm sorry sir, but local laws forbid me from telling you that the car costs 75,000$ or that it would be 5 years of monthly payments at X per month. Is there anything I can answer for you, sir?

Re:I'm sorry sir...

[RivenAleem]

Oh ans sir, I almost forgot, but it might interest you to know that someone may have neglected to remove the keys from the ignition of that car over there, and it is our policy not to press charges for people who, should they steal it, return it in a timely manner...

Re:This is a perfect example of America's hypocris

[Ravaldy]

Don't forget. They are also enemies of progress. I don't plan on buying one but for every one who buys a Tesla there is more R&D money for better and more affordable models.

Re:Blaming Republicans

[Ralph Wiggam]

...except selling electric cars, apparently.

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[LandDolphin]

Auto Companies would LOVE to deregulate the laws the protect Indeprendent Dealerships. Problem is, that local Car Dealerships have a LOT of influence in local elections. Thus, they were able to legislate protection for their industry that should have died out in the 50s.

Re:Blaming Republicans

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, you can sell cars plenty easy in Texas - you just need to first get a business license IN Texas. Tesla could rent a tiny mailbox, register with the State as a car dealer, and then sell to its heart's content. This is pretty common for many States; for example, in CA you can only procure a firearm from a licensed dealer within the State. Buy from out of State? You need to pass it through an in-State dealer. Buy a handgun from another Californian? You have to do it through a licensed in-State dealer.

Re:The Voice of the Ignorant Screams

[minstrelmike]

Are you talking about the actual article where the founder of Blackwater spent over a million dollars 'lobbying" the Texas legislature to prevent a free market for car buyers in Texas?
Seems to me it doesn't matter who the person is that lobbied, they AND the Texas legislature have removed a basic part of the free market in order to protect a segment of rich businessmen. Same old same old. Republicans say they are against big government but they act otherwise.
I think there are ignorant people screaming on this discussion and you sir are one of them. (I know you aren't screaming but you are certainly jumping to conclusions).

I'm enough of a 'classic' Libertarian (not the Ron Paul fundamentalist version) to know what a free market actually is.

easy solution.

[mbkennel]

Elon Musk calls up some billionaire pals and they start a company called Tesla of Texas. Tesla of Texas runs a minimal profit margin operation.

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[minstrelmike]

Dealerships are car retailers, they purchase the car form the manufacturer and resell to you. Tesla is eliminating the middleman and operating it's own stores, so purchasing a Tesla is always direct from the manufacturer purchase.

And for some unfathomable reason, the Republicans want to prevent consumers from having more choices. Maybe they are just trying to save us from ourselves (something they jump all over the Democrats for). Too bad there aren't any real Libertarians any more. Or even free market Republicans.

The ones who passed this law died 50 years ago

[raymorris]

> Can I buy one just to drive it through the doors of their capitol and park it on top of the assholes who passed all these laws

These laws were passed in the 1930s, so no. Those assholes are dead.

Re:Holy Fucking Shit

[WheezyJoe]

Actually, GM kinda does have the same problem. GM is looking into cutting out dealers and sell directly online.
Not clear how far GM wants to go with this, but it would sure be fun to see them duke it out with the dealers.

Re:The Voice of the Ignorant Screams

[Mr D from 63]

And what conclusions did I jump to? That other states have similar laws? Is that really a jump? That some folks are posting assertive positions without understanding the history of the law? Is that really a jump?

I freely admitted I don't know all the facts behind the law. I have not seen any indication that you or others do either. I also admitted I don't like the law on its surface. But what if there were unregulated "dealers" screwing consumers with false information and part of the intention was to reduce or eliminate that? Isn't that the kind of stuff liberals love?

So, like I said, protectionist laws are not that uncommon. They are often the result of lobbies. They exist in red and blue states. They have unintended consequences. Conservatives don't necessarily support them just because they are in Texas. Did any democratic Texans vote for this? I would guess some did, and some Republicans voted against it. Is there any part of this last paragraph that you disagree with?

This is a democrat anti-big-business law from 1930

[raymorris]

The automobile franchise laws are from from the 1930s, when the Democrats ran Texas.
It's an anti-General Motors, anti-Ford, anti-big business law, not an anti-Tesla law.

Tesla Motors TX

[zdzichu]

Tesla already has stores and services company in Texas. Why can't they register Tesla Motors TX as dealership?

Re:Tesla Motors TX

[jonwil]

Ok, so Telsa goes to someone not employed by the company or connected to it and pays them money to open up "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc". Since "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc" is a completly separate company with no ownership ties to "Telsa Motors Inc" then "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc" can legally purchase cars from "Telsa Motors Inc" and sell them to the public.

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[lgw]

It's not a Republican thing, or a Texas thing really, it's just legacy dealership laws that most states have. Car dealership owners are often the most powerful figures in local politics (since politics is mostly about name recognition and advertising budget), so it's not a surprise. It will likely change over time.

Mostly though, party doesn't matter: we have 2 big-government, pro-corporation parties now (bigger government is more pro-corporation now - it's naive to think otherwise). Look at the press the "Tea Party" gets and you'll see why neither one wants to be the small government party.

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[WheezyJoe]

That's the great thing about electric motors: max torque is at zero Km/h.

Then drops off like a cliff so it has no top end.

Like to see your figures behind that. Car and Driver says:

We measured 0-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, a quarter-mile of 13.3 seconds at 104 mph, and a governed top speed of 134 mph. That’s similar to the performance of the V-8 German sedans.

and from what I have read, that's typical. The electric motor keeps up the torque across a much wider band, negating the need for a complex multi-speed transmission. Yeah, the torque drops off, but not until you've blown the doors off most ICE-powered cars simply by flooring the pedal (no clutching, no shifting, just go).
Sure sounds fun to me.

Re:Holy Fucking Shit

[alexander_686]

Well, kind of. In GM’s model you can do almost everything online but you still have to buy the car from an independent dealership. Which for GM I think is the right answer. Having the parent company compete directly against their own independent franchise is wrong. There is just too much room for abuse. Now Tesla is a different matter – they would not be competing with their own franchise since they don’t have any.

San Antonio

[tokiko]

I saw one in San Antonio last week!

Re:San Antonio

[j_kenpo]

Me too. Saw one at the San Antonio Airport, parked in the EV charging station next to a Volt. It kept me from plugging in my Leaf, but I was so excited to see a Tesla that I didn't care =D. If there are some in San Antonio, which is about 20 years behind the rest of the world in technology adoption, then I'd be surprised that there are only 1000 in the rest of the state.

Re:This is a democrat anti-big-business law from 1

[jxander]

Then why are they sticking with it?

One of the big red/blue differences I see is the level of insistence that the old way is the right way, simply for being the old way. Conservatives tend to "stick to their guns" even if the guns are empty, rusted beyond usability, and gave you tetanus. Blues tend to change for the sake of change, on a whim. Part of the whole "prop 8" debacle in California was based on the fact that a liberal judge (who happened to be gay, and wanted to get married) basically decided to make gay marriage legal in the state.

Any truely conservative minded person (if you'll excuse the "no true Scotsman"), should look at the draconian laws and call them exactly what the are, liberal meddling, before unceremoniously dumping them.

Get from another state?

[mattack2]

Wouldn't just going to another state to buy one be faster?

Heck, couldn't you have it shipped to your state from another state? (or if not technically shipped, pay someone to drive it there for you.)

agreed

[raymorris]

Agreed. I tend conservative myself, as in "don't tthrow the baby out with the bathwater", and I think this particular law needs to be reviewed. I would want to hear arguments pro and con before saying it should definitely be repealed , but it looks suspiciously like a bad law.

Ps - look up Draco, who Draconian refers to.
That's a lot like calling Obama "Hitler".
Obama is more like Elmo than he is Hitler, and that law, while it may be bad, is in no way Draconian.

Re:agreed

[St.Creed]

Ps - look up Draco, who Draconian refers to.

I didn't know that that's where the term comes from. Not too shabby - his name lives on even after more than two millenia. His quotes read like Judge Dredd - I'm pretty sure I now know where that particular comic book hero came from :)

Re:agreed

[jxander]

the more you know.jpg

I love little trivia like that.

the readers

[globaljustin]

I know of very few establishment Republicans who actually claim to be libertarians.

right...i kind of disagree, IMHO you could say "the GOP hasn't used coordinated libertarian talking points since the 2012 election" but ppl like Rand Paul & Paul Ryan are still pretty vocal

my comment was more directed at us, the people, and our flaming little internet forum here on /.

see, we run this country, if we choose to take the reigns...I see alot of standard-issue GOP policy gussied up as "libertarianism" and the /. commentariat (and techies in general) love to chose not to take a side by saying "both parties suck, i'm a libertarian, fuck you sheeple"

that attitude is not only harmful to democracy but it is a symptom of a problem that hurts our industry

we can't afford not to take sides...ex: Net Neutrality...there is only one party doing anything *policy* to protect Net Neutrality...if the GOP had its way you know what the internet would look like.

so my statement was directed at more than this one instance in Texas, but it is exemplary of the central concept

Re:the readers

[intermodal]

Wow. lots of offtopic nonsense in that post.

Republicans have always had a sliglhtly libertarian flavor to their talking points, but talking the talk does not mean walking the walk. And when they talk the "libertarian" talk they usually rebrand it as "conservatism".

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[EnglishDude]

Is it really 2200 lb/ft? Or am I reading the chart wrong?

Re:Blaming Republicans

[mattack2]

If it's *that* easy, why would Tesla be doing the much more confusing (to the end would-be-purchaser), and I suspect much more expensive, route of having dealerships that aren't really dealerships, that can't even give people prices or schedule service?

If it really was just getting a business license in Texas (which I would suspect they already HAVE to have for the aforementioned dealers that aren't really dealers), they would have it already.

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[AaronW]

Actually the torque drops of gradually. The induction motor has a lot more high speed torque than a lot of other electric cars. I have both a Prius and a Model S P85. In my Prius the low end torque is great but it rapidly drops off and is quite pathetic at higher speeds. Similarly my father's Fisker Karma has great torque up to around 40MPH where it starts to get rather anemic. My Tesla Model S on the other hand still has plenty of torque at freeway speeds. It's a fairly flat torque curve. I think this may be due to the fact that Tesla is using an induction motor instead of synchronous motors. If I punch it at a green light I'm usually doing 45 by the time I reach the other side of the intersection and it just keeps going. It will do a quarter mile in 12.4 seconds and 0-60 in 4.2 seconds or less (some have gotten as low as 3.9 seconds). http://www.zeroto60times.com/Tesla-Electric-Cars-0-60-mph-Times.html

The torque is insane. I've driven up some steep grades like Kingsbury Grade near Lake Tahoe and the car handles it like it's nothing.

RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON!

[uslurper]

Often times, the regulations are there for good causes.

In the case of a regulation stating that cars must be sold by an independent dealership.
Perhaps this was meant to prevent manufacturers from directly selling to buyers. If they were to sell directly, they could undercut the local dealerships and put them out of business. Many people would think that sounds reasonable.

A similar law was passed which prevented Kodak from developing its own film.

Those kinds of regulations are not limited to Texas. In California there are laws stating that any new dealership must be approved by a panel of existing dealers. (hmm going from memory, may be confusing with schools) This was intended to keep an area from being over-saturated with dealerships. I do remember a story about someone trying to setup an online car dealership that was smothered by local dealership regulations.

Problems with seemingly good regulations occur when the governing bodies are controlled by the companies they regulate. Large corporations dont just payoff government. They also plant representatives on comitties, board members, and trade organizations. These different powers separately are easy enough to bypass. But when organized into a single weapon can effectively block innovation.

Re:RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON!

[twistofsin]

Every example you have stated is just flat out protectionism, and is not something our gov't should be involved in.

Progress often means the status quo becomes outdated.

Who the fuck likes a car salesman anyway? I can't imagine there is a lot of support to retain those jobs.

Re:RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON!

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see anything good whatsoever about any of your suggested regulations. As a customer, why the fuck do I care about the local dealerships? I just want cheap cars and good service. If the dealership can't compete with the manufacturer on price, and doesn't add any value that would entice me to use their services, they are not entitled to my patronage, period - and I resent any law that would say otherwise.

Re:Blaming Republicans

[Ralph Wiggam]

You should send an email to Tesla since apparently you're smarter than every person there.

Re:how is a "Tesla store" not a dealership?

[AaronW]

Tesla does not have dealerships. They have showrooms. The only way you can buy a car at a show room is to go online to do it. There are no commissions. When I ordered my car that's how I did it. I had to go to Tesla's web site to order the car and put in my credit card for the deposit.

I think it creates a more relaxed atmosphere. There is no pressure to buy but they're there to answer questions. When I was there a lot of people would just walk in and look at the car since the showroom was inside a mall. There is no inventory of cars to worry about (though they do have a few for test drives).

Service is also different than dealerships. Their prices are typically a lot lower for things that are not covered by warranty since their goal is to not make a profit. Since everything except the tires and wheels is covered under warranty there's no effort to push unneeded services either.

Re:This is a democrat anti-big-business law from 1

[AxemRed]

That's part of the reason that overturning it doesn't get as much voter support as one would expect. But they are also sticking with it because the people who profit from it (car dealerships) are lobbying to keep their unfair advantage.

This is sort of like the shenanigans happening with alcohol laws in my home state. Alcohol can't be sold at stores on Sundays, but it can be sold at restaurants and bars. The main push against changing the law isn't from religious people. It's from the liquor store association who doesn't want to have to be open an extra day to compete with groceries and the restaurant association who wants to keep their monopoly on Sunday alcohol sales.

Simple solution

[SourceFrog]

Build the retail outlet smack in the middle of an Ecuadorian embassy.

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[mythosaz]

I know you're an AC, but is your comprehension that bad?

At low speeds: Tesla > Camero
At high speeds: Tesla ~ Camero

What exactly is illegal about better technology?

[thisisauniqueid]

Remind me again what Tesla would be doing wrong by offering better technology, and selling that technology on its own relative merits in a competitive market to consumers who have the freedom to make their own choice about what to spend their money on?

Re:Blaming Republicans

[Darinbob]

But they want to run the business differently from a generic dealership model. Basically laws in many states prohibit auto dealers from selling directly to the public, thus they are required to go through franchise middleman dealers. Tesla wants to avoid this because they think the consumer needs to be educated on the vehicle before buying, among other reasons.

Both sides are essentially saying that they want to protect the consumers.

Re:Holy Fucking Shit

[Darinbob]

But they don't want to sell it the same way as everyone else! Why should there be a middleman franchise dealer in the mix?
And they ARE trying to change the laws to allow sales, it's just that they're not paying out the bribes to the lawmakers in the same way that the Texas auto dealer association is doing.

so you agree?

[globaljustin]

And when they talk the "libertarian" talk they usually rebrand it as "conservatism".

yeah...that's kind of my whole point this whole time..."libertarians" are usually just "conservatives" using libertarian rhetoric

you agree?

why does your tone indicate that you feel our ideas clash somehow?

Re:so you agree?

[intermodal]

I tend to agree, yes.

My tone was a result of the idea that the GOP and Democrats differ on net neutrality and other tech issues. At that point, I was soured on the direction of your post, as both major parties have proved themselves to be both technologically illiterate and to have no interest in preserving our freedom in any such respect. Overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and Republicans voted for, as an example, the USA PATRIOT act. The DMCA passed by unanimous consent and voice vote. Those are just two examples.

Isn't this whole thing against Texas law?

[Optic7]

They have a "free enterprise and antitrust act" in their state's laws that appears to me to cover exactly this kind of situation:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.15.htm

CHAPTER 15. MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE [emphasis mine]
[...]
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINTS
[...]
Sec. 15.04. PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION. The purpose of this Act is to maintain and promote economic competition in trade and commerce occurring wholly or partly within the State of Texas and to provide the benefits of that competition to consumers in the state. The provisions of this Act shall be construed to accomplish this purpose and shall be construed in harmony with federal judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes to the extent consistent with this purpose.

Re:Saw one for the first time.

[hb253]

Yep, it's fairly zippy, but the problem is, after 2 or 3 quarter mile runs your battery is depleted.

Blue laws stick around for non-religious reasons

[onyxruby]

Some blue laws stick around for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. In Minnesota every few years someone gets irritated that you can't go to a liquor store or a car dealership on Sunday and tries to overturn the blue laws prohibiting it. Inevitably the car dealerships and liquor stores are always the ones that fight overturning the blue laws.

The reason is simple and it has nothing to do with religion. As long as everyone has to be closed on Sunday no one has to incur the cost of being open on Sunday. Since Sunday is generally a poor day for most retail anyways, it literally isn't worth being open unless your competitors are. As long as all of the competitors are all closed than there is nothing to be gained as any possible sales would happen on another day anyways.

Capitalism

[scarboni888]

Americans seem to love their free market capitalism while it's working in their favour.

As soon as it's not then lots of government regulations will be required.

Editors

[jdavidb]

I live in Texas and I oppose all laws on personal freedom including all laws interfering with the private relationship between company and customer. Would it be too much to ask the editors to identify what a Tesla is so I can know what this story is about? I'm pretty sure my high school physics teacher had a Tesla, but it sounds like that was something different. Please take pity on us poor oppressed Texans and enlighten us.

The Texas Legislature isn't going to meet in 2014?

[Ocker3]

They twice mentioned in the article that the Texas Legislature won't meet again until 2015, is that right? They're all going on holiday for a year?