Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: What is a License?

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Hey guys, have a look at this......could this also apply to a Pistol License?...if so, this could be what we're all looking for!....let me know what you think.

    http://www.outlawslegal.com/driving/license.htm

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    From the initial looks of it, it seems like a solid argument. One should, of course, verify the legal references first. This still brings the debate back down to how the 2A is interpreted. Is it truely our God given right to have a deadly weapon with us everywhere we go? I think so, but will the majority?

    Let it also be noted that, whilethis argument MAY POSSIBLY be a good one against a possession of illegal weapons charge, it is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card. I know I couldn't afford the court cost and legal fees to argue that point, no matter how right it is.

    With all of that said, I'm not nearly as familiar with gun rights as many of the other members of OCDO, so I'm definately looking forward to more responses.



    :celebrateI love this guy!

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    From the initial looks of it, it seems like a solid argument. One should, of course, verify the legal references first. This still brings the debate back down to how the 2A is interpreted. Is it truely our God given right to have a deadly weapon with us everywhere we go? I think so, but will the majority?

    Let it also be noted that, whilethis argument MAY POSSIBLY be a good one against a possession of illegal weapons charge, it is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card. I know I couldn't afford the court cost and legal fees to argue that point, no matter how right it is.

    With all of that said, I'm not nearly as familiar with gun rights as many of the other members of OCDO, so I'm definately looking forward to more responses.
    This was my opinion as well......if it looks "solid" to you, go to....www.outlawslegal.com/jourindex.htm ..... get the free Jurisdiction challenge and give it a good look....please post your thoughts on it as well.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Found this to be interesting........


    Title 18 UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
    Sec. 31. Definitions
    When used in this chapter the term -
    ''Motor vehicle[/b]'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    Found this to be interesting........


    Title 18 UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
    Sec. 31. Definitions
    When used in this chapter the term -
    ''Motor vehicle[/b]'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;
    I wonder how many liberal courts have included going to work or coming home from work as 'commercial purposes'?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    My EYES hurt from READING all the alternating CAPS which REMIND me of my sister chatting on AIM. > )



    ...that said, interesting read, I dunno where exactly he's going with it though, I never really got the "point". "Do you really need a drivers license?" Yes, if you want to drive a car legally in the United States...
    -Unrequited

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    My EYES hurt from READING all the alternating CAPS which REMIND me of my sister chatting on AIM. > )
    ...that said, interesting read, I dunno where exactly he's going with it though, I never really got the "point". "Do you really need a drivers license?" Yes, if you want to drive a car legally in the United States...
    Cute.....it was all quoted and I felt no need to change it.

    Try again my uninformed friend.................

    "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
    "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

    "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

    In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
    "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

    Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
    "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
    "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

    Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
    In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
    "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
    We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
    Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    I was talking about the link, not about your quotes... also, There are state laws requiring the profiency of learning the law and function of a vehicle before operating one, at least there were in New Jersey, We had stupid classes in high school about WHY we had to take a driver's ed. & test and get our license even if we already knew how to drive.
    -Unrequited

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    I was talking about the link, not about your quotes... also, There are state laws requiring the profiency of learning the law and function of a vehicle before operating one, at least there were in New Jersey, We had stupid classes in high school about WHY we had to take a driver's ed. & test and get our license even if we already knew how to drive.
    Ahh...my mistake

    But.......

    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
    Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.



    "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."
    Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)


    In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
    "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
    And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
    "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •