Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: Drivers License Vs. Right to Travel

  1. #1
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527

    Drivers License Vs. Right to Travel

    Here is some court decisions concerning case law about the right to travel. I just wanted to toss this out here to get your opinions.

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    In a way not good. Drivers licenses and classes and such. I'd hate to see much of that bleed over to firearms.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    51
    whatll bleed over is mandatory 'driver training' from specially certified state employees and contractors

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    This is all well and good if he can get a court to agree with him, and continue getting concurrance up to the state's supreme court - as I am supposing the State will appeal any decisions in his favor until that point.

    That will then provide a one-state precedent that can be used as the basis of a court challenge in another state. And so on, and so on, until there is a case that makes it to SCOTUS.

    There are, and have been in the past, many situations like this but where the person asserting the right has lost throughout the appeal process.

    If he wants to be the test case, let him go for it.

    I support his effort, but I am not joining him in standing before the court.

    stay safe.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I applaud his efforts and hope the system changes from licensing-based to revocation-based. That is, if one behaves improperly on roadways, one looses their right, for a time, to use roadways.

    However, "right to travel" doesn't negate a state's authority or responsibility to ensure a minimum level of safety exists on its roadways, and a state does this through drivers education, testing, and licensing programs.

    Vehicle registration is an entirely different ball of wax.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If a person cannot be trusted operating a vehicle, they should be in prison. If they are allowed to roam free, they should be allowed to drive a car on the freeway.

    I don't believe that for a second. I just had two purposes for making that statement: to point out the foolishness of equating a right to drive a car with the RKBA and another argument that it is not my intention to get into here.

    The RKBA is an enumerated and protected right. The natural right is not specifically to be armed, but to defend oneself. Our Founders, believing reasonably that being armed was necessary to defending oneself, chose to protect the natural right (self-defense) by protecting the specified enumerated right (RKBA).

    The right to travel is a natural right, but is not enumerated in a way that protects a particular mode of exercising that right. As driving a car is only one way, among many, to travel, it can be treated as a privilege without infringing on the natural right to travel. (Were the government license actual travel, i.e. issue licenses for all modes of travel, as some oppressive governments have done, then they would be infringing on the natural right to travel.)

    I, for one, support the reasonable regulation of operating motor vehicles by State and local governments. (It is none of the feds' business.)

    I would also point out the danger in the argument that equates a right to drive with the RKBA: The equation fosters the opposition argument that we regulate the operation of vehicles, a far more dangerous weapon than guns, so why shouldn't we regulate guns. Sauce for the goose.

    By way of an example of the "sauce error": When I first joined the AF, men were required to wear a hat when in uniform outdoors. Women were not. In an attempt to get rid of the hat-wearing requirement, it was pointed out that there was no rational basis for this bit of sex discrimination. The folks in the Chief of Staff's office agreed. The rules were changed to require women to wear hats outdoors.

    Be careful what you ask for. Those who make our laws might just start treating the carry of firearms and the driving of cars equivalently. Many already do.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If a person cannot be trusted operating a vehicle, they should be in prison. If they are allowed to roam free, they should be allowed to drive a car on the freeway.

    I don't believe that for a second.
    Neither do I! I read through it four times wondering whether you'd fallen on your head before I read further, as it didn't sound at all like the eye95 I'd come to know on this forum!

    I just had two purposes for making that statement: to point out the foolishness of equating a right to drive a car with the RKBA and another argument that it is not my intention to get into here.

    The RKBA is an enumerated and protected right. The natural right is not specifically to be armed, but to defend oneself. Our Founders, believing reasonably that being armed was necessary to defending oneself, chose to protect the natural right (self-defense) by protecting the specified enumerated right (RKBA).
    Hmm... I believe our Founding Fathers had more on their minds than self-defense when they wrote 2A. In fact, not only is self-defense not mentioned in 2A, but it's very rarely mentioned in any of the ancillary writings by those who crafted or supported our Second Amendment. Most of what was written involved an armed populace being able to throw off either an invasion force or a failure of our "Great Experiment," with much more emphasis on the latter. History is replete with overcontrolling governments first steps towards subjucation being the disarming of those whom they seek to rule. Germany did it. The UN attempted to do that through the small arms treaty, and has snuck a less visible effort in their mix which pro-UN governments are all to eager to bite off on.

    Put simply, the U.S. Government is not off the hook. It's still on trial, and as per our Founding Fathers' design, it'll always be on trial. If they adhere to the Constitution, everything's ok.

    Almost. Provisions exist within our Constitution which would allow our Government to strip us of our rights. The chances are very slim, but it could happen.

    However, the groundwork against such activities were laid in our Declaration of Independence, and fortified by both our First and Second Amendment rights. Successive amendments further fortified our rights as citizens, strengthening the general public against an overbearing government in ways unseen during the original draft of our Constitution.

    I believe one of the most ingenious efforts of the early leaders of our nation was the crafting of our Oath of Office, required in various forms by all who hold public office, from our President down through the chain of command, including all commissioned and non-commissioned officers, as well as all elected members of Congress (both our Representatives as well as our Senators), and our Supreme Court. This oath doesn't stop there, however! It extends down to the state, county, city, township, etc. levels, to ensure that all members of the public trust are beholden to the ideals upon which our country was founded.

    Sadly, not all of those whom have been elected over the years have held to those ideals. Some have attempted to change the system from within the boundaries established by our system, and some have attempted to change the system by surrepticious means, overpowering the system from within: BAD! BAD President/Representative/Senator/SCOTUS Judge!

    A few, however, have had a few good ideas, some of which were incorporated in our various Amendments, beginning with the First (which protects the Second) and the Second (which protects the First).

    Most of the ideas, however, didn't pass muster and were canned.

    Ours is a very good system of government. It has its faults, but if we work with it, it'll produce fruit.

    The right to travel is a natural right, but is not enumerated in a way that protects a particular mode of exercising that right. As driving a car is only one way, among many, to travel, it can be treated as a privilege without infringing on the natural right to travel. (Were the government license actual travel, i.e. issue licenses for all modes of travel, as some oppressive governments have done, then they would be infringing on the natural right to travel.)
    I've a good friend who is walking throughout the U.S. drumming up funds in support of military families. His trip will cover more than 7,000 miles, but he's never once been asked for an ID of any kind during the first half of his trip which covered more than 2/3rds of our nation. Then again, he's on foot!

    I, for one, support the reasonable regulation of operating motor vehicles by State and local governments.
    Same.

    It is none of the feds' business.
    Bingo and ditto.

    I would also point out the danger in the argument that equates a right to drive with the RKBA: The equation fosters the opposition argument that we regulate the operation of vehicles, a far more dangerous weapon than guns, so why shouldn't we regulate guns. Sauce for the goose.
    And an area of non-sequitor which should never be broached lest it lead to the further restriction of rights as we're observing in both England, and as of late, Australia.

    By way of an example of the "sauce error": When I first joined the AF, men were required to wear a hat when in uniform outdoors. Women were not. In an attempt to get rid of the hat-wearing requirement, it was pointed out that there was no rational basis for this bit of sex discrimination. The folks in the Chief of Staff's office agreed. The rules were changed to require women to wear hats outdoors.
    This had to have occurred before 1989!

    Be careful what you ask for. Those who make our laws might just start treating the carry of firearms and the driving of cars equivalently. Many already do.
    Hopefully not, never, and anyone who does needs to have their head examined in excrutiating detail (provide names, and I'll be happy to take their fallacious arguments to task).

    Put simply, the two do not equate. The "right of travel" had nothing to do with cars, having been conceived of centuries before the advent of the first automobile. Throughout, however, the right of travel has always been subject to good conduct free of warrant/arrest/conviction/probation.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Put simply, the two do not equate. The "right of travel" had nothing to do with cars, having been conceived of centuries before the advent of the first automobile. Throughout, however, the right of travel has always been subject to good conduct free of warrant/arrest/conviction/probation.
    I cn't go along with this completely as the right to travel does include the right to travel in a car but does not include the right to operate such a vehicle. A drivers license is only required to operate certain motorized vehicles on public highways. It is not required to operate the vehicle on private property nor is it required to travel in a car or other vehicle operated by someone else. I am sure someone will point our my error but I have never heard of someone being required to have a license or similar to travel across the US as long as they are not the operator of a vehicle. You may walk, ride a bicycle, in some places a DUI cycle, a tractor, horse and buggy or many other types of transports. Just that to operate a car or truck on the public highways requires a license and I do not see that as a right or having anything to do with the "right to travel".

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Since9: I may not have made myself clear on the underlying goal of the 2A, so I will try to explain myself better:

    The right to defend oneself is a natural right. It exists independent of government and is not enumerated in the Constitution. What is enumerated in the Constitution is the right to keep and bear arms. The ultimate motivation for the enumerated right is the natural right.

    Self-defense runs the gamut for defending oneself from individual threats, to defending the community from larger and more organized threats, to defending the State from enemy forces, to defending the nation from existential threats. The Constitution, when enumerating the RKBA, cites as one reason (not the only reason) defense of the State, meaning the States individually and the Union of those States, because that fell within the scope of the document they were framing.

    Many State constitutions (including Alabama) specifically include defense of oneself, along side defense of the State, in their State analogs to the 2A. Clearly the Founders had the natural right of self-defense in mind when they penned the amendment that protected the enumerated right to own and carry personal weapons.

    The reason I drew the distinction between the enumerated and natural right is because, by implication, some are drawing a parallel between the natural right to travel needing a perceived (but nonexistent) enumerated right to operate a motor vehicle on the publicly owned highways and the natural right to self-defense having the enumerated rights in the 2A and its State analogs.

    The reason that there is (and should be) no enumerated right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways is that the enumerated right, in this case, is not necessary to the natural right. There are a multitude of ways to travel (even on public highways) other than to drive your own car. Not being able to operate a motor vehicle does not prevent one from traveling.

    On the other hand, not allowing people to be armed does prevent them from defending themselves. (Now, some people are going to nit-pick this point. I won't bother to respond. I will simply count on the reader's rational ability to picture the typical person trying to defend himself from a BG without being armed and then picture the typical person traveling about town, or even across the nation, without operating their own motor vehicle. The former will almost always result in failure. The latter will almost always result in success.)

    Therefore, the enumerated RKBA is necessary to the natural right to self-defense. An enumerated right to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway is not necessary to the natural right to travel. It is appropriate to license the privilege of driving. It is inappropriate to license the RKBA. It is also severely logically flawed to draw a parallel between the RKBA and a "right to drive."

    I hope that made my point clearer.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Except if you read the Chicago Motor coach ruling SCOTUS has ruled that traveling in a vehicle on our roads and highways is a "right".

    Unless you make a living off doing so a license, should not be required but we don't have is a further case to test this ruling.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member usmcbess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Labadie, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    195

    Where do rights come from?

    Is the question that needs to be asked. The founders of our country were of the opinion, so am I, that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". The creator are where rights come from! One of which is to travel unrestricted, this falls under liberty. Laws restricting a persons ability to travel are unGodly and unconstitutional.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Except if you read the Chicago Motor coach ruling SCOTUS has ruled that traveling in a vehicle on our roads and highways is a "right".
    Does that ruling specify whether you are simply a passanger, or the operator of the vehicle?
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MarlboroLts5150 View Post
    Does that ruling specify whether you are simply a passanger, or the operator of the vehicle?
    I've been searching the heck outta the Internet for the ruling, preferring to read it over just repeating what another has said about it. All I can find are virtually the same few words about it repeated again and again and again on message boards by posters trying to make the same point.

    There is a lot of cutting and pasting going on--and not a heckuva lot of reading going on.

    I would be profoundly grateful for an opportunity to actually read this decision should someone be able to post a link.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MarlboroLts5150 View Post
    Does that ruling specify whether you are simply a passanger, or the operator of the vehicle?
    Operator. Its a good read.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Claytron View Post
    But couldnt that same opinion be applied to bearing arms? The same way driving a car is only one way to travel, firearms are only one way to defend yourself. We could walk everywhere we go the same way that we could defend ourselves by flinging paperclips at an attacker. But whether traveling or defending yourself you should have the best, most reasonable means of doing so available to you.
    The right to defend ourself is is similar to our right to travel.

    The second Amendment was written to protect us from our government and to protect our government.

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


    "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 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.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 12-07-2010 at 09:32 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I've been searching the heck outta the Internet for the ruling, preferring to read it over just repeating what another has said about it. All I can find are virtually the same few words about it repeated again and again and again on message boards by posters trying to make the same point.

    There is a lot of cutting and pasting going on--and not a heckuva lot of reading going on.

    I would be profoundly grateful for an opportunity to actually read this decision should someone be able to post a link.


    I have been trying to find it as well.
    From what I have found so far, I don't think it was a SCOTUS case, I think it was a Illinois Supreme Court case.
    I was able to find a reference to "Volume 169 of the Northeastern Law Reporter, p. 22"
    But haven't been able to find a copy online.

    A couple of the sites I stumbled on said it was a case where The city of Chicago was trying to charge the company a tax to operate on roads within city limits, the company already had the permits that the state required. The state's permit requirements were not part of the case.

    Some sites, had this quote. "Even the Legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."

    (I do not vouch for the accuracy of any of the info in this post)
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I have been trying to find it as well.
    From what I have found so far, I don't think it was a SCOTUS case, I think it was a Illinois Supreme Court case.
    I was able to find a reference to "Volume 169 of the Northeastern Law Reporter, p. 22"
    But haven't been able to find a copy online.

    A couple of the sites I stumbled on said it was a case where The city of Chicago was trying to charge the company a tax to operate on roads within city limits, the company already had the permits that the state required. The state's permit requirements were not part of the case.

    Some sites, had this quote. "Even the Legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."

    (I do not vouch for the accuracy of any of the info in this post)
    That is pretty much what I was able to find.

    Unless someone can produce the ruling, I tend to believe that someone found some small passage in some obscure ruling that supported a predisposed POV and posted it. Someone found the post and repeated it. The ruling has taken on mythical proportions without anyone having really read or studied the whole thing or any other cases (especially those that followed it and actually went to SCOTUS).

    I'd love to see a scholarly piece on the subject, containing other rulings. Absent that, I'd love to read the whole ruling and any appeals.

    We have some resident lawyers and law students. Can they help us?

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    That's why I prefer the other cases. That show it is a right.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    That's why I prefer the other cases. That show it is a right.


    Do you have the full opinions for any of the cases?

    The only one I have been able to find so far is Schactman v. Dulles actually it was shachtman it seems that all these sites "cut and pasting" the quote all have the same misspelling, or it's a different case, I am not sure.
    Shachtman v. Dulles was a case involving the denail of a passport application.


    EDIT: I also found Kent V. Dulles it was another passport case.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 12-08-2010 at 11:38 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am sure that Shachtman is cited because the appeals court states that there is a "natural right to travel" that is limited only by the rights of others and is subject to reasonable regulation.

    In my Internet searches, I have seen a lot of parroting (including some word-for-word postings) that snatch snippets from the cases, without providing links to them. The difficulty of finding a link to some of these cases really raises strong doubt that folks have actually read the decisions. Most likely, they read posts that reference the decisions, like the poster's conclusions, and simply reposted the unresearched idea somewhere else.

    If someone cites a decision, they ought to at least be able to afford those reading their post the opportunity to read the decision. Otherwise, I just assume that the poster is just blowing so much smoke.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    I found a Washington court of appeals case Spokane v. Port. The constitutionality of the state's DL requirement was challenged. The court ruled the requirement constitutional.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I found a Washington court of appeals case Spokane v. Port. The constitutionality of the state's DL requirement was challenged. The court ruled the requirement constitutional.
    From that case, I found this particular reference to another case:

    See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel)
    which is precisely the point I was making in an earlier post.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am sure that Shachtman is cited because the appeals court states that there is a "natural right to travel" that is limited only by the rights of others and is subject to reasonable regulation.

    In my Internet searches, I have seen a lot of parroting (including some word-for-word postings) that snatch snippets from the cases, without providing links to them. The difficulty of finding a link to some of these cases really raises strong doubt that folks have actually read the decisions. Most likely, they read posts that reference the decisions, like the poster's conclusions, and simply reposted the unresearched idea somewhere else.

    If someone cites a decision, they ought to at least be able to afford those reading their post the opportunity to read the decision. Otherwise, I just assume that the poster is just blowing so much smoke.


    You find a lot of this on the internet. You can take partial quotes from a case and make it seem like it says something different from, sometimes even contrary to, the actual opinion of the court.

    It seems most of these "right to travel" quotes are cases having to do with passports.
    I would still be interested in reviewing the full opinions if I can find them, or if someone can post them.


    My personal opinion for driving is that once you reach a certain age chosen by the state.
    lets say 15, then you are now able to drive, no license required. Licenses could not be suspended for failure to pay civil infractions. If the state believes you are a danger on the road and shouldn't be able to drive, then they should have to take you to court and a judge or jury would decide if the license should be suspended and for how long.
    The state should have the burden of proof to demonstrate you are too much of a danger to drive.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    From that case, I found this particular reference to another case:



    which is precisely the point I was making in an earlier post.

    Funny, as I read that line I started to think of your earlier post.



    Speaking of your earlier post. Something about the points you made got me thinking. (driving can be restricted because it is not the only way to travel).

    Driving is not the only mode of travel but it is the most common and the most convenient
    We do not have an enumerated right to travel by car, but we do have a natural right to travel.
    It seems like it may be reasonable to say that the right to travel would be extended to whatever the most used and most convenient mode of transportation is at the time.
    (I am not saying this is the way it is, Just a thought that came to mind.)

    I am still not sure if the framers would of considered it a right or not. So far my research has proved inconclusive.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I incline to licensing for reasons I stated above.

    The right to travel is a natural right, as is the right to self-defense.

    There is no enumerated right to drive on the highways that is analogous to the RKBA.

    Due to the need to protect the rights of others from indiscriminate driving by some, there needs to be an agreed upon set of "rules of the road" that drivers follow, making each's exercise of that mode of travel possible and safe. Before someone should be allowed to exercise that particular mode (that mode being driving on the highway) of exercising the right to travel, they should illustrate that they have a reasonable familiarity with those rules and an ability to operate within them. Therefore, licensing that particular mode of travel is reasonable.

    Some might argue that the same reasoning could be applied to licensing the RKBA. I would simply point out again that, while there is a natural right to travel, there is no natural or enumerated right to use the mode of travel that is driving on the highway. On the other hand, there is both a natural right to defend oneself and the enumerated right to use the mode of keeping and bearing arms to exercise that right.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-08-2010 at 12:53 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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